Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 16.01.2026 vs Of on 23 January, 2026
2026:HHC:3360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 3033 of 2025
.
Reserved on: 16.01.2026
Date of Decision: 23.01.2026.
Kishore Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of H.P.
...Respondent
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Ms Ragini Dogra, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No.131/2025 dated 19.05.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1) and 115(2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner is a friend of the informant's husband. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS2. 2026:HHC:3360 informant and her husband were going to Kullu on 18.05.2025.
The petitioner asked the informant's husband to visit him. The .
informant and her husband went to the petitioner's house. The petitioner was drunk, and he demanded ₹ 5000/- from the informant's husband, who declined by saying that he did not have any money. All three of them slept on the mattress. The of petitioner inflicted injuries to the informant's husband at about 2:30 am. He shouted for help and the Informant woke up. She rt raised an alarm. The informant's husband was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to ZH Mandi. The allegations made in the petition are false. No case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 20.05.2025. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Mandi. He has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The police recovered the knife, but the DNA analysis was inconclusive. The petitioner's blood report mentions that no alcohol was found in his blood, which falsifies the prosecution's case that the petitioner was intoxicated. The petitioner would abide by the ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
3. 2026:HHC:3360 terms and conditions that the Court may impose; hence the petition.
.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Komal and her husband Jatin were going to Kullu on 18.05.2025. Petitioner Kishore Kumar called Jatin and asked Jatin and his wife to stay with him. The of informant and Jatin went to the petitioner's house. The petitioner was intoxicated, and he demanded ₹ 5,000/- from rt Jatin. Jatin replied that he had no money. The informant, her husband and the petitioner slept. The petitioner woke up at 2:30 am and inflicted injuries on Jatin's chest. Jatin shouted for help.
The informant woke up after hearing his cries. The petitioner again inflicted injuries with the knife on the neck and the leg of Jatin. The informant shouted for help, and the petitioner ran away. Jatin was taken to the Hospital. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police arrested the petitioner, and the petitioner got the handle of the knife, and his pant recovered. Human blood was detected on the bed sheet, mattress, blood collected from the spot, t-shirt, a pair of chappal and the lower of Jatin during the chemical analysis.
Injuries were found on the person of Jatin, which could have ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
4. 2026:HHC:3360 been caused by means of a sharp-edged weapon like a knife.
DNA analysis of the knife blade and plastic handle could not be .
conducted because the DNA had degraded. The police filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses on 13.03.2026. Hence, the status report.
of
4. I have heard Ms Ragni Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned rt Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5. Ms Ragni Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution's version that the petitioner was intoxicated is falsified by the report of analysis, in which no traces of alcohol were found in the petitioner's blood. The police recovered the blade and handle of the knife, but the DNA was found to be degraded. There is no evidence that the knife was used for the commission of a crime. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the district of Mandi. He has roots in the society and would abide by the terms & conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS5. 2026:HHC:3360
6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner .
was involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He would abscond and intimidate the witnesses if released on bail.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the of submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the records carefully. rt
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -
(i)Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. InGudikantiNarasimhuluv.High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) "7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
6. 2026:HHC:3360 benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England" (Oxford University Press, .
London 1960) p. 75 -- Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire of into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, rtit is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhativ.State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
7. 2026:HHC:3360 other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds .
for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court inRam Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan of Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be rt granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) "3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkarv.Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
8. 2026:HHC:3360 evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.
.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkarv.Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under
with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors of which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para
9) rt"9. ...It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
9. 2026:HHC:3360
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied) .
xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Deviv. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three- Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an of unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumarv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singhv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court rt granting bail to the accused, observed as follows:
(Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35) "35.While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused."
(emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
10. 2026:HHC:3360
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine .
SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not of jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating rt offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime...."
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The status report mentions that the informant had seen the petitioner inflicting injuries upon her husband. Her statement is duly corroborated by the report of the Medical Officer, which mentions injuries on the chest, neck and finger of Jatin, which could have been caused by means of a sharp-
edged weapon.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS11. 2026:HHC:3360
12. The medical officer opined that injuries near Jatin's heart could have caused his death. Therefore, prima facie, the .
petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS.
13. It was submitted that the police recovered the handle and blade of the knife. But these could not be connected of to the commission of a crime because the DNA on them was not sufficient to carry out further analysis. This would make the rt prosecution's case suspect. This submission will not help the petitioner. The non-recovery of the weapon of offence will be a case of defective investigation, and the petitioner cannot be acquitted because of defective investigation. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 115, that non-recovery of the weapon of the offence is not fatal to the prosecution's case. It was observed :
"17. Learned senior counsel for the accused persons con- tended that in the absence of recovery of pellets from the scene of occurrence or from the body of the injured per- sons, it is highly doubtful as to the scene of occurrence and whether such an incident did take place in the man- ner suggested by the prosecution. Learned counsel ap- pearing for the complainant pointed out that, though there was an entry in the Malkhana Register (Ex. P31A) wherein it was stated that a sealed packet containing pellets was deposited but prosecution failed to lead any ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
12. 2026:HHC:3360 evidence on this point. It was also pointed out that, though a report was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, no evidence regarding the recovery of the .
pellets was produced.
18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, that mere non-recovery of a pistol or a cartridge does not detract from the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is accept- able. Likewise, the absence of evidence regarding the recov- ery of used pellets, blood-stained clothes, etc., cannot be of taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have already pointed out that the gun- shot injuries tallied with medical evidence. It is also seen that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, rt received 8 and 7 gunshot wounds respectively, while Raj Singh (PW-2) also received 8 gunshot wounds scattered in front of the left thigh. All these injuries have been noted by the Doctor (PW-1) in his reports, Exs. P-1 to P-4." (empha- sis supplied)
14. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim bail because the knife is not connected to the commission of the crime by the report of the analysis.
15. The informant had asserted in the FIR that the petitioner had consumed alcohol; however, no methyl alcohol was detected in the blood of the petitioner as per the report of analysis. It was submitted that the report of analysis falsifies the prosecution's version. This submission is not acceptable.
The informant never claimed that she had seen the petitioner consuming alcohol. She stated that the petitioner was ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
13. 2026:HHC:3360 intoxicated, which is her opinion and may or may not be correct; therefore, the absence of methyl alcohol in the blood .
sample will not falsify the prosecution's case.
16. The petitioner is, prima facie, involved in the commission of an offence under Section 109 of the BNS, which is punishable with imprisonment for life when the hurt is of caused; therefore, the nature of the punishment is severe. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti rt Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244:
"6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of extreme severity, ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
14. 2026:HHC:3360 the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should .
he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows: [Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51] "I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against of him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, rt would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important:
the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death."
7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
17. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment.
18. No other point was urged.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS15. 2026:HHC:3360
19. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed, also, pending miscellaneous application (s), if .
any.
20. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.
of
(Rakesh Kainthla)
rt Vacation Judge
January 23, 2026
(meera)
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS