Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 05.01.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
2026:HHC:3284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No: 2887 of 2024
Reserved on: 05.01.2026
Decided on : 09.01.2026
__________________________________________________________
.
Dashrath Singh ...Petitioner
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
of For the petitioner : Mr. Prikshit Rathore, Advocate.
For the respondents :
rt Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner, Dashrath Singh, who is in custody since 13.04.2021, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.32 of 2021, dated 11.04.2021, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour, [HP].
FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-2- 2026:HHC:3284
2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the alleged offence.
.
It is averred that an FIR No 32 of 2021, dated 11.04.2021 was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but the petitioner has no role in the aforesaid accusation. It is averred that on of 11.04.2021, that one Shri Jittu has telephonically informed to police of Police Station Majra that a rt scuffle took place at Jogiban and on the basis of alleged information police of Police Station Nahan went to alleged place and telephonically contacted Jittu, upon which Jittu disclosed that he escaped from place of occurrence and his friend Maan Singh was allegedly killed by Dashrath and his dead body of deceased was lying on highway. It is averred that informant Jittu came from Nahan side and identified the dead body of Maan Singh and his statement under Section 154 CrPC was recorded.
2(i). It is averred that petitioner moved an
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-3- 2026:HHC:3284
application for regular bail [Cr.MP(M) No. 298 of 2024], and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2024, [Annexure P-1].
.
2(ii). It is averred that the bail petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2021 for 4 years and 1 month and prolonged detention and deprivation of speedy trial has curtailed his personal liberty of under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that incarceration cannot be preventative nor rt punitive on the basis of mere accusation, which are yet to be tested and proved. It is averred that there are no past criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. It is undertaken bail petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
In these circumstances, instant application has been filed through his brother, praying for bail in instant case.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
3. Upon listing of instant bail application ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-4- 2026:HHC:3284 and upon issuance of notice, Status Report dated 13.03.2025 was filed. Thereafter a Fresh Status Report dated 09.05.2025 was filed and thereafter .
Fresh Status Report dated 10.07.2025 was filed showing stage and status of trial. The matter was adjourned on the request of Learned Counsel for petitioner between July to September 2025, when, of on 05.09.2025 placing on record the Zimni orders.
Mateer was adjourned on couple of occasions rt but on 31.10.2025, the same was postponed, at joint request of Learned Counsel for the parties, so as to enable him to file Fresh Status Report which was filed on 27.11.2025 and another Status Report dated 05.12.2025 and the matter was heard and was reserved on 05.01.2026. During the course of proceedings, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the Zimni orders and statements of witness recorded by Learned Trial Court, to indicate that delay in trial was not attributable to the bail petitioner.
3(i). The Status Reports dated 13.03.2025,
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-5- 2026:HHC:3284
09.05.2025, 10.07.2025, 27.11.2025 and 05.12.2025 being pari-materia, narrate the entire sequence of events leading to the incident, registration of .
FIR and Investigation conducted and material on record reveals that out of a total of 34 PW's, the statement of 19 PWs have been recorded by Trial Court, as on day.
of 3(ii). Perusal of Status Reports indicate that the offence took place about four years back in rt the night intervening 10/11.04.2021. Status Report indicates that the complainant, Jittu telephonically informed the police that a scuffle took place at Jogiban and based on said information, the police personnel went to spot at a place, Rukhri nearby an under-construction hotel, alleging that Maan Singh was killed and his dead body was lying on highway.
3(iii). On reaching the spot, police recorded statements under Section 154 CrPC of complainant
-Jittu. The petitioner stated he undertakes the task of cutting hair of ladies and he resides with ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-6- 2026:HHC:3284 his wife Rajni and two children at Majra. The complainant and Maan Singh are residing together for last two and half years at Dhaulakuan on .
rent. It is averred that on 10.04.2021 at about 9.00 p.m, complainant Jittu and Maan Singh went on a motorcycle UP-86Z- 3294 to Dhaulakuan and met Dashrath near bus stand, who was of riding his own motorcycle. Thereafter, Maan Singh and Dashrath consumed liquor at Fauzi Ka Dhaba rt and since Maan Singh had consumed excess liquor thereafter the bail petitioner-Dashrath Singh carried him towards Kolar and Jittu came slowly, by driving the bike of Dashrath. Prosecution story, as disclosed by complainant Jitu is bail petitioner drove the bike at a high speed and the complainant-
Jittu remained behind at a distance and when, the complainant-Jittu reached Banthala Rukhadi at 11.15 pm during the night, he noticed that dead body of Maan Singh was lying on National Highway showing apprehension that someone has killed him and his neck and clothes were strained with ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-7- 2026:HHC:3284 blood.
3(iv). Based on investigation, the Status Report indicates that complainant-Jittu stated that both .
Man Singh and the petitioner-Dashrath consumed liquor and while they were on their way and had reached a place near Bankalan Rukhdi hotel, he saw that petitioner-Dashrath had laid Maan of Singh on the road and was giving thrashing to him with a rod embedded with an iron weapon, rt which resulted in the death of Maan Singh.
3(v). During investigation, the police visited the spot, video graphed and photographed the spot where the aforesaid incident had taken place. After taking into possession the blood, soil, motorcycle UP86Z-3294, mobile phone of Maan Singh, weapon of offence, ante postmortem of dead body was conducted at Forensic Science Laboratory, Nahan.
REBUTTAL BY LEARNED COUNSEL:
4. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, places reliance on depositions of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-8- 2026:HHC:3284 PWs, including deposition dated 19.11.2025 of the complainant-Jittu-PW 19, who has not at all supported the prosecution story. The complainant-
.
Jittu has denied that the bail petitioner-Dashrath had called him at about 9:00 on 10.04.2021, on his mobile asking him to come to Dhaulakuan. The complainant-Jittu also denied that bail petitioner of
-Dashrath went to Dhaulakuan on the motorcycle of Maan Singh. The complainant-Jittu denied that rt petitioner Dashrath and Maan Singh had consumed liquor at Dhaulakuan. Even PW-9-complainant-
Jittu has specifically denied to have been present on the night intervening 10/11.04.2021 at 11:15, when, Maan Singh was alleged to have assaulted.
He denies to have seen Maan Singh's dead body and blood oozing out from his neck. PW-9- Complainant-Jittu deposed before Trial Court that he did not know about extra marital affairs of wife of bail-petitioner with Maan Singh and even factum of consumption of liquor was also denied.
It is pointed out that trial has not
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
-9- 2026:HHC:3284
been delayed on his part. He further submits
that detention cannot be preventative nor punitive and denial of speedy justice and prolongation .
of trial on the basis of mere accusation cannot be the basis for curtailing the personal liberty of the bail petitioner, when, out of total 34 PWs only 19 have been examined as yet and the trial of is likely to take consideration time for conclusion.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that rt the Status Reports do not indicate any adversial past antecedents and do not point out any adverse conduct during his judicial custody for the last more 4 years and 8 months now. It is submitted that the bail petitioner shall participate in the trial, on each and every date hereinafter and for ensuring conclusion of the trial, the bail petitioner may be put to any conditions, as this Court may deem fit and proper, which shall be earnestly complied with by the bail petitioner and therefore, it is prayed that the prayer for bail, may be accepted by this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS - 10 - 2026:HHC:3284
5. Heard, Mr. Prikshit Rathore, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K.
Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for
.
Respondent-State and have gone through available material on record.
MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL:
6. Broad parameters have been mandated of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regulating the claim for bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia rt versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496;
reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 and in Sushila Aggarwal versus State- NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that after ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 11 - 2026:HHC:3284 taking into account the accusation, gravity, status, position in society claim for bail is to be examined.
While considering claim for bail, allegations being .
frivolous or groundless is to be seen. Depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and rt the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused ; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension based on cogent and convincing material that the accused may thereafter threaten either the witnesses or the victim may be examined and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. It is mandated that bail can neither be by way of a punishment nor preventative and mere accusation cannot form basis for prolonging the incarceration and for curtailing the personal ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 12 - 2026:HHC:3284 liberty of petitioner-accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, while examining the claim for bail, a balance has to be carved .
out between the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 vis-à-vis societal interests also.
6(i). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia of versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to rt be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad-
parameters referred to above.
6(ii). While dealing with the claim for bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516-522 of 2025), in State of Karnataka versus Sri Darshan, etc. has mandated that while considering claim for bail neither a detailed examination of the evidence nor any findings ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 13 - 2026:HHC:3284 touching the merits of the case is to be resorted to.
In backdrop of above parameters, this Court proceeds to analyze the claim for bail in the .
instant case.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE:
7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on of record as is borne out from the Status Reports and the statutory provisions and mandate of law, rt this Court is of the considered view that bail petitioner [Dashrath], is entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:
PRIMA FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST BAIL PETITIONER DOUBTFUL:
8(i). Perusal of the Status Reports indicates that the prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful. The prima facie case accusation against the bail petitioner-Dashrath appears not to have is not made and there are no reasonable grounds to infer the accusation against the bail petitioner at this stage.::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 14 - 2026:HHC:3284 Perusal of Status Reports indicate that entire prosecution story is that one Shri Jittu informant-complainant telephonically informed the .
police that a scuffle took place at Jogiban and based on said information, the police went to spot at a place, Rukhri nearby an under-construction hotel, alleging that petitioner-Dashrath had killed of Man Singh and his dead body was lying on the highway.
rt Statements under Section 154 CrPC of complainant-Jittu reveals that on 10.04.2021 at about 9.00 pm, complainant-Jittu and Maan Singh went on a motorcycle to Dhaulakuan and petitioner
-Dashrath met them near bus stand, who was riding his own motorcycle. Thereafter, both Maan Singh and Dashrath consumed liquor at Fauzi Ka Dhaba and since Maan Singh had consumed excess liquor. Complainant-Jitu informed the police that when, he reached Banthala Rukhadi at 11.15 pm during the night, he noticed that dead body of Maan Singh was lying on National Highway ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 15 - 2026:HHC:3284 apprehending that Maan Singh was killed and blood was oozing out from his neck and his clothes were strained.
.
Based on investigation, the Status Report indicates that complainant-Jittu stated that both Man Singh and the petitioner-Dashrath consumed liquor and while they were on their way of and had reached a place near Bankalan Rukhdi hotel, he saw that petitioner-Dashrath had laid rt Maan Singh on the road and was giving thrashing to him with a rod embedded with an iron weapon, resulting in death of Maan Singh.
Perusal of depositions of PWs, including deposition dated 19.11.2025 of complainant-
Jittu-PW19, who has not at all supported the prosecution story, who deposed that the bail petitioner-Dashrath had never called him at about 9:00 on 10.04.2021 to come to Dhaulakuan. The complainant-Jittu denied that the bail petitioner Dashrath and Maan Singh had consumed liquor at Dhaulakuan. Even PW-9-complainant-Jittu has ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 16 - 2026:HHC:3284 specifically denied to have been present on the night intervening 10/11.04.2021 at 11:15, when, Maan Singh was alleged to have assaulted and .
he denies to have seen Maan Singh's dead body and the fact that blood was oozing out from his neck.
Based on the material on record but of and without resorting to assessment of evidence, this Court, is of the view that the prima-facie rt accusation against the bail petitioner appears to be doubtful and no reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation against the bail petitioner.
8(ii). Moreover, the factum as to whether the petitioner murdered {Section 302 IPC} Maan Singh is to be tested, examined and proved during the trial and, therefore, bail cannot be denied by presuming guilt, at this stage, when, the prima-facie accusation appears to be doubtful at this stage.
INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
9. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception it has been ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 17 - 2026:HHC:3284 mandated that the personal liberty of a person cannot be curtailed on mere accusations; and an accused is to be treated as innocent till the .
guilt was established in accordance with law, as has been outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in of the following terms:-
"11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central rt Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 18 - 2026:HHC:3284 sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the .
accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of Cr PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on of criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it rt has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 19 - 2026:HHC:3284
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:
.
"We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact of that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication rt that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs?
If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law.
Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 20 - 2026:HHC:3284 if the case is charge-sheeted by the police."
PERSONAL LIBERTY AND CLAIM FOR BAIL:
10. While dealing with the claim for bail, .
in the context of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India being sacrosanct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi of Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and Another, in the following terms:-
rt "18 Criminals are not born out but made.
The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 21 - 2026:HHC:3284 the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict.
The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is .
presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby of violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court 10(i).
rt In is set aside."
Central Bureau of Investigation versus Dayamoy Mahato Etc. 2025 SCC On Line SC 2775, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
13. The rights enshrined under Article 21 and their application to undertrials has often been the subject of consideration before this Court and, in one voice it has been held that the rights of fairness, dignity and liberty apply to each and every prisoner, irrespective of the nature of offence that they stand charged for. If this is not maintained then essentially, it would render a difference between an undertrial and a convict, obsolete to a certain extent. We say, to a certain extent because certain facets of Article 21 apply even to those who have been convicted under law. In ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 22 - 2026:HHC:3284 the case of the former, should these rights not be granted to them or be available to them in their full extent, it would in a sense render them guilty without it being so. To state the obvious, such a position is wholly impermissible.
.
14. The jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised various facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty such as speedy trial, timely completion of investigation, fair trial etc. Unduly long incarceration especially as a undertrial when, the crucial aspect of guilt is yet of to be decided, is particularly offensive to this sacrosanct right, if not sustainable as per procedure established by law. Circumspection rt in granting the relief of bail in heinous offences and more so offences that shock the conscience of the society such as in this case, stems from a place of concern, understandably legitimate at that, about public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law. The scales of Lady Justice must balance on the one hand-
the constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions i.e. the paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
ADHERANCE TO PRINCIPLE:- BAIL IS RULE:
11. Depriving the petitioner of the concession of bail shall negate the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception', as outlined by ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 23 - 2026:HHC:3284 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024, as under:-
.
"49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.
rt 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
"10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC
240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner.
It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial""
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 24 - 2026:HHC:3284 the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle .
that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
of
55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of rt an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant."
NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
12. Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner asserts that the petitioner has no past criminal ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 25 - 2026:HHC:3284 antecedents. The status report does not indicate any past criminal antecedents and, therefore, in view of these facts, the present accusation which .
is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial, cannot be made the basis for prolonging the incarceration of the bail petitioner in facts of in the instant case.
of MANDATE OF LAW GRANTING BAIL ON PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND DENIAL OF SPEEDY TRIAL:
13.
rt Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was registered on 11.04.2020 and the petitioner is in custody for about four years and eight months as on day. After the completion of Investigation and filing of Challan-Police Report and Framing of Charge, the Trial Court had commenced and out of 34 PWs, the statement of 19 PWs have been recorded as yet and trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion.
13(i). While dealing with the claim for bail in a matter relating to accusation under Section 302 IPC and taking into account the versions ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 26 - 2026:HHC:3284 and cross versions coupled with the fact that accused had suffered incarceration for more than 14 months coupled with the fact there is no .
much progress in trial and trial was to take considerable time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mukesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2025, granted the of bail to the accused therein, in the following terms:-
2. The petitioner is accused of giving one blow rt on the head of the deceased with a danda (Bamboo). It may also be mentioned that occurrence took place on 08-06-2020 and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 12-06-2020.
5. After cancellation of bail by the High Court, the petitioner has again surrendered on 16-11-
2022 and is in custody.
7. It may be seen that there are cross-versions and both sides suffered injuries. The question as to who was the aggressor will depend upon the appreciation of evidence and will be decided by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. It is not expedient or desirable for this Court to express any opinion in relation thereto at this stage.
8. Suffice to say that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 14 months, the crucial witnesses have since been examined and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. Even otherwise also, the witnesses are close family members of both sides, hence there is no likelihood of winning over the witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS- 27 - 2026:HHC:3284
9. Since conclusion of trial will take considerable time, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.
11. Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to .
his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
12. The petitioner and his family members as well as Respondent No. 2 and his family members will ensure that no untoward incident takes place again.
of 13(ii). In a similar fact-situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praveen Rathore versus State of rt Rajasthan and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268, granted bail to accused who was facing incarnation for more than four and half years under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC, in the following terms:
2. The above-stated FIR has been lodged on a complaint made by Mahadev Meena, who has alleged, inter alia, that his son - Chetan Prakash got married with Anita Meena on 21.01.2011. He was, thereafter, selected as Assistance Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Bureau. Anita was working as a second grade teacher, at that time, and later on, she got appointment as First Grade Lecturer in a Senior Secondary School. He further alleged that the petitioner (Praveen Rathore) was also working as an Officer in the Intelligence Bureau. He came in close contact to his daughter-in-law (Anita Meena) and when his son-Chetan Prakash objected to it, ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 28 - 2026:HHC:3284 the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant's son was found unconscious near railway culvert on 14.02.2018 and was declared as dead when he was taken to the hospital. His nails of hands and legs were found to be blue.
.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, by now, has undergone more than four and a half years' of sentence. The prosecution intends to examine 76 witnesses, out of whom 53 have already deposed. All the crucial witnesses have already been examined. The instant case was adjourned on few occasions to enable the prosecution of to examine Chauthmal Kashyap and Manohar Rathore, who were stated to be the vital witnesses. Their deposition is also complete.
7. Taking into consideration the period rt already spent by the petitioner in custody coupled with the fact that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to release him on bail.
8. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL CANNOT BE ECLIPSED BY NATURE OF THE OFFENCE:
13(iii). While dealing with right of an accused for speedy trial, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Dham versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2026, SCC Online SC 30, {decided on 06.01.2026} has outlined that the right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be eclipsed ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 29 - 2026:HHC:3284 by the nature of offence and prolonged incarceration of a person and delayed trial, is a ground for granting bail, in the following terms:
.
"17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same.
of
18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an rt undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenances, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail."
13(iv). While dealing with the claim for bail in a case relating to accusation under Section 302 IPC, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Cr.MP (M) No 2618 of 2023, Jasbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 4.11.2023 has affirmed the right to bail in view of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 30 - 2026:HHC:3284 prolonged detention of the accused therein, in the following terms:-
5(ii). ..... In 2021 (3) SCC, 713, Union of India Versus K.A. Najeeb, Hon'ble Apex Court .
considered various judicial precedents where Article 21 of the Constitution of India was invoked in case of gross delay in disposal of cases of undertrials and consequential necessity to release them on bail. The earlier decisions were reiterated that liberty granted by Part-III of the Constitution, would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness, but also access to justice and of speedy trial. It was held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused have suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts rt would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. Some relevant paras from the judgments are extracted hereinafter:-
"10. It is a fact that the High Court in the instant case has not determined the likelihood of the respondent being guilty or not, or whether rigours of Section 43D(5) of UAPA are alien to him. The High Court instead appears to have exercised its power to grant bail owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime in the near future. The reasons assigned by the High Court are apparently traceable back to Article 21 of our Constitution, of course without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43D (5) of UAPA.
11. The High Court's view draws support from a batch of decisions of this Court, including in Shaheen Welfare Assn, laying down that gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential necessity ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 31 - 2026:HHC:3284 to release the undertrial on bail. It would be useful to quote the following observations from the cited case:
"10. Bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the need to protect the society and the nation, TADA has prescribed in .
Section 20(8) stringent provisions for granting bail. Such stringent provisions can be justified looking to the nature of the crime, as was held in Kartar Singh case, on the presumption that the trial of the accused will take place without undue delay. No one can justify gross delay in disposal of cases when of undertrials perforce remain in jail, giving rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21." ...
(emphasis supplied) rt
12. Even in the case of special legislations like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (" the NDPS Act") which too have somewhat rigorous conditions for grant of bail, this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Babba v. State of Maharashtra and Umarmia alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat enlarged the accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.
13. We may also refer to the orders enlarging similarly situated accused under the UAPA passed by this Court in Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra. That was also a case under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the UAPA. This Court in its earnest effort to draw balance between the seriousness of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 32 - 2026:HHC:3284 charges with the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial could be expected to be completed took note of the five years' incarceration and over 200 witnesses left to be examined, and thus granted bail to the accused notwithstanding Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
.
Similarly, in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v. State of Maharashtra, an accused under the UAPA was enlarged for he had been in jail for four years and there were over 147 witnesses still unexamined.
15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid rt Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial.
Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 33 - 2026:HHC:3284 of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part .
of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
5(iv). ......A previous bail petition bearing Cr.MP of (M) No.1458/2022 instituted by the petitioner was dismissed on merit on 02.09.2022. While deciding the aforesaid bail petition, considering the fact that rt FIR in question pertained to the year 2020, it was hoped and expected that the learned Trial Court would make endeavour to expedite the trial. We are now at the fag end of 2023. In terms of the status report filed by the respondent, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses thus far. Statements of 23 prosecution witnesses still remain to be recorded. The zimni orders placed on record reflect that the trial has been deferred time and again for want of presence of prosecution witnesses. Considering the fact that at this stage 23 witnesses remain to be recorded, it is apparent that the trial is not going to be concluded in near future. The petitioner, who has already spent about three years and five months in custody, in my considered opinion has made out a case for his enlargement on regular bail at this stage. There is no criminal history of the petitioner. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution about the likelihood of petitioner's tampering with the evidence or winning over ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 34 - 2026:HHC:3284 remaining witnesses, can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions and also granting liberty to the respondent/State to seek cancellation of the bail in case the conditions are violated by the petitioner. In view of all the aforesaid reasons and without expressing .
any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR ....."
13(v). This Court in Cr.MP(M) No 490 of 2024 Manoj Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, of decided on 17.09.2024, granted bail to an accused who had been in custody under Section 302 read rt with Section 102-B IPC, for more than for 4 years and 2 months on the ground that prolonged detention curtails the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Based on the material on record as borne out from the Status Reports and the PW Evidence and the mandate of law coupled with the fact there is neither any prima case nor any reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation against the bail petitioner at this stage coupled with the fact that trial is likely to take considerable ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 35 - 2026:HHC:3284 time for its conclusion ; with another added fact that delay in trial was not attributable to the bail petitioner therefore, further detention certainly .
amounts to implicating the bail petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures-suspicion, by way of punishment, defeating the very intent and object of bail; by making petitioner to be incarcerated of for 4 years and 8 months now ; and in these circumstances, the plea for bail carries weight and rt the same is accordingly granted.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:
14. Status Report(s) filed by State Authorities have not pointed out any cogent and convincing material to show that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
15. NOTHING RECOVERABLE FROM BAIL PETITIONER:
Status Reports filed by State Authorities ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 36 - 2026:HHC:3284 do not indicate that any recovery is still attributable to the petitioner in the aforesaid incident.
NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR THWARTLING JUSTICE :
.
16. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material on record to infer that of after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In rt absence of any cogent and convincing material, the plea for bail, deserves to be granted to the petitioner, in the instant case.
APPREHENSION OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:
17. Learned State Counsel has objected to the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is a resident of Village Gadhi Dudhadhari, Post Office Hathrus (UP) and there is every possibility that petitioner may flee away, which shall obstruct the trial hereinafter.::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 37 - 2026:HHC:3284 The above apprehension is misconceived for the reason, that mere apprehension cannot be the sole basis for prolonging the incarceration .
and such apprehension, if any, can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions in bail order by mandating the bail petitioner not to leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the permission of of the Trial Court and with the mandate that the bail petitioner shall appear in the trial rt on each and every date hereinafter and failure to appear except for the extreme medical grounds {involving hospitalization only}, non-appearance shall entail automatic cancellation of bail order, in which event the police-State Authorities shall be free to arrest the bail petitioner forthwith.
CONCLUSION:
18. In the facts of instant case, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that firstly, prima facie prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage even as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 38 - 2026:HHC:3284 the Status Report(s) reveal that the bail petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2021 and is undergoing incarceration for about four years and eight months .
;and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, when out of total 34 PWs, only 19 PWs have been examined and the trial is still likely to take considerable time; and fourthly, of delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner;
and fifthly, the bail petitioner- accused is presumed rt to be innocent unless proven guilty; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative ; and seventhly, continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of the accused fleeing away from trial or an accused is likely to threaten the witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that petitioner has ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 39 - 2026:HHC:3284 misused liberty granted to him earlier; and tenthly, the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial; and eleventhly, the denial .
of the right of speedy trial as mandated in Article 21 is an added factor for granting bail ; and lastly, in order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and the interests of the State, this of Court imposes stringent condition in this order hereinafter mandating that the infraction, violation rt or misuse of concession-liberty shall entitle the police/State Authorities to seek cancellation of concession of bail and with an added condition that the bail petitioner shall appear in the trial hereinafter except for the extreme medical grounds {involving hospitalization only} and non-appearance before the Trial Court hereinafter shall entail automatic cancellation of bail order, in which event the police-State Authorities shall be free to arrest the bail petitioner forthwith ; and denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the fundamental rights of personal liberty and deny the right of ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 40 - 2026:HHC:3284 speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct. On totality of the facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, referred to .
above, claim of the petitioner [Dashrath Singh] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in peculiar facts-situation of this case.
DIRECTIONS:
of
19. Based on the above discussion and the material on record and the mandate of law and rt for reasons recorded hereinabove; and in peculiar facts, the instant petition is allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Dashrath Singh] on bail, subject to the observance of the following conditions:
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release the bail petitioner [Dashrath Singh] on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 75000/-{Rupees Seventy Five Thousand} with two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned; out of which one surety should be a permanent resident of place where the petitioner resided at the time ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 41 - 2026:HHC:3284 of alleged offence Nahan [Himachal Pradesh] and another surety should be permanent resident of Village Gadhi Dudhadhari, Post Office Hathrus, [Uttar Pradesh];
.
(ii) Bail petitioner shall hereinafter appear before the Trial Court on every date of trial except for extreme medical exigencies (hospitalization only) and failure to appear shall result in automatic cancellation of bail, without of notice ;
(iii). Failure to comply with condition no rt (ii) shall entail arrest of bail petitioner without notice ;
(iv). Bail petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Trial Court without the permission of Trial Court ;
(v). Learned Trial Court can impose any other condition, if so desires, to ensure the presence and effective progress of trial hereinafter;
(vi). Petitioner shall abide by all condition
(s), which may be imposed by Learned Trial Court/this Court, in view of this order;
(vii) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 42 - 2026:HHC:3284 cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ;
(viii) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and .
that of his surety to Learned Trial Court;
(ix) Petitioner after release, shall report to Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station, concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11.00 of a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour;
(x) rt Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court;
(xi) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(xii) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses or any other person acquainted with the case;
(xiii) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises;
(xiv) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/ modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 43 - 2026:HHC:3284 imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or if the circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after;
.
(xv) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of bail, in case, petitioner violates any conditions {except condition no (ii) & (iii), which entails automatic of cancellation of bail order} hereinafter:
20. Observations made in this judgment shall rt not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove.
21. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court.::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
- 44 - 2026:HHC:3284
22. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Sirmour at Nahan for ensuring compliance of directions .
in Para 18(viii) & 18(ix) of this order to keep an update on good conduct and behaviors of the bail petitioner [Dashrath Singh], and copy of this order be transmitted to Superintendent of Police, District of Hathras (UP) with directions to forward the same to concerned police station for compliance, here-in-
after.
rt In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
January 09, 2026 Judge
[tm/himani]
::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS