Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pushpa Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2830 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decision:23.01.2026 Pushpa Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Addl.
Advocate General.
Mr Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate, for the informant/victim.
Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 90 of 2025, dated 20.09.2025, registered in Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 107, 127(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC & ST Act).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the child had died on 16.09.2025 during his treatment at IGMC, Shimla, because of the consumption of some poisonous substance. The petitioner was named as an abettor for the commission of the suicide by the child. These allegations are false; there is no material on record to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. She had not instigated the commission of the suicide by the child. Police investigated the matter in a biased manner due to political pressure. The petitioner is a woman and is entitled to the beneficial provisions of Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant lodged an FIR stating that his son 3 was lying unconscious on 16.09.2025 at 7:30 PM. The informant took him to the hospital, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla. The child died on 17.03.2025 at about 1:30 am at IGMC Shimla. He had consumed some poison. The informant came to know on 18.09.025 that the child was beaten up and harassed. He had told his mother, Sita Devi, that Pushpa Devi (bail petitioner) and 2-3 persons had beaten and locked him in the cow shed. The petitioner was saying that the child had touched her house, and he would not be released till a sacrificial goat was brought. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court on 24.11.2025. The material evidence was collected and sent to SFSL Junga for analysis. A supplementary charge sheet would be filed after receipt of the report of the analysis. Hence, the status report.
5. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the informant/victim.
4
6. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent, and she was falsely implicated. Allegations in the FIR, even if taken to be true, do not constitute the abetment of suicide. The Police have not conducted a fair investigation and have acted under political pressure. The petitioner is a woman and is entitled to special protection under Section 480 of the BNSS. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Banti Devi Vs. State of HP along with connected matter (2025:HHC:2268) and Geeta Devi Vs. State of HP (2025:HHC:4174) in support of his submissions.
7. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner had beaten the child because he had touched her house, which shows caste-based discrimination being practised by the petitioner. There is a resentment in the locality because of the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner had intimidated the informant's family members, and an FIR No. 101 of 2025 was registered regarding this fact. The petitioner would intimidate 5 the witnesses in case of her release on bail; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
8. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the informant/victim, adopted the submissions of Mr Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General and prayed that the petition be dismissed.
9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
10. 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. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. 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.6
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the 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 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, it 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 Bhati v. 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 other 7 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 in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan 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 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 placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and 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 Sarkar v. 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 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.8
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. 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 which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) "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
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 9
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 Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court 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)
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. The petitioner is a woman. Section 480 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita (BNSS) provides that the Court may 10 direct a person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence be released on bail if such person is a child, a woman, or is sick or infirm. This provision applies to a person brought before the Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, but the Courts have to keep this special provision in mind while considering the bail application of persons falling in the categories mentioned in Section 480 of BNSS. It was laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Nethra vs State of Karnataka (12.05.2022 - KARHC): MANU/KA/2055/2022 that a woman can be released on bail even in case of murder because of special provisions under Section 437 of CrPC. It was observed:
"In terms of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., bail can be granted in a non-bailable offence in three circumstances as depicted in the proviso: (i) being a person below 16 years of age, (ii) a woman and (iii) is sick or infirm. The petitioner is a woman. She is entitled to consideration under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. Before applying the aforesaid provision to the facts of the case and considering the case of the petitioner for enlargement on bail, it is germane to notice the application of the said provision by coordinate Benches of this Court, all in the case of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and they being women.
xxxxxxx All the afore-quoted judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court were considering the purport of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and were cases where the accused No. 1 therein were women, and all of them were alleged of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for the commission of murder. It is also a matter of record that the alleged accomplice in the act of murder, Vijay Kumar, was granted bail on 13-04- 11 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge. For the aforesaid facts, the statute, i.e., Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and its application in the judgments of three coordinate Benches would ensure the benefit of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, notwithstanding the fact that the offence alleged is under Section 302 of the IPC. It is not the law that bail should always be denied in a case where the offence punishable is death or life imprisonment. In exceptional cases, if the statute permits and the facts not being so gory and grave criminal antecedents shrouding the culprit, the consideration in such cases would be different."
13. The status report filed in the present case is highly vague. It does not even mention the facts of the case. Thus, the status report does not assist in the adjudication of the matter pending before this Court.
14. It was asserted in the FIR that the child committed suicide due to harassment and the beatings given to him. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Velladurai v. State, (2022) 17 SCC 523 that the mere quarrel on the date of the incident does not constitute the abetment to suicide. It was held in Chilikuri Mariyadas v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 2379 that beating and harassment before the suicide does not constitute its abetment. Hence, prima facie, the prosecution's version that the petitioner had beaten and harassed the child, and she is guilty of abetment of suicide, is doubtful. 12
15. The State has relied upon the copy of the charge sheet, which mentions that the child was locked inside the cow shed from where he escaped by breaking the mesh of the ventilator. This was verified by the report of the forensic experts. The child belongs to the scheduled caste, whereas the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled caste. The petitioner demanded a sacrificial goat to purify her house. These facts were corroborated by Manju Kumari, Suresh Kumar and Sarojni Devi. The charge sheet does not mention that any custom of sacrificing the goat to purify the house was prevalent in the area; therefore, this allegation will not assist the prosecution. Further, if the petitioner believed that the touch of the child would pollute her house, she would not have confined the child in her house. All these circumstances raise a prima facie doubt regarding the prosecution's version.
16. It was submitted that the petitioner had intimidated the informant and his family members, and she is likely to intimidate them if released on bail. This submission will not help the respondent/State. The status report filed by the State mentions that Mr Vinay Kumar, Narender, Devender and Om Prakash had gone to the informant's house, where Sita Devi, 13 Reena Devi, Jagdish and Rajinder Singh were present. Vinay Kumar told the informant's family members not to permit the outsiders to visit their house, as it would lead to riots and arson. It is not shown that Vinay Kumar was in any manner connected to the present petitioner. Therefore, the bail cannot be denied to the petitioner simply because some persons had asked the informant's family members not to allow outsiders to visit their house. The status report does not mention that Vinay had asked the informant's family members not to depose against the petitioner in relation to the present case; therefore, this incident cannot be used to deny bail to the petitioner.
17. The petitioner was arrested on 15.10.2025. The police filed the charge-sheet, and the custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation. The petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to special consideration, and she cannot be detained for an indefinite period during the trial.
18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - 14
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;
(IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Kaithu, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Vacation Judge 23rd January, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat) Digitally signed by GAURAV SINGH DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, GAURAV Phone=b615aae6b839bd7695619d205a06 49faa3f10ee78fd5fc7d356ef93266e0ead9, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=97f5851e94d1ce4a9d9b SINGH 2419311e660ac9051e6298a507d8e42c11f e77a95002, CN=GAURAV SINGH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026-01-23 15:55:44