[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Baljit Singh vs Of on 20 December, 2025

                                                                        ( 2025:HHC:44716 )




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                              Cr. MP (M) No. 2730 of 2025




                                                                                   .
                                              Reserved on: 15.12.2025





                                              Date of Decision: 20.12.2025.

    Baljit Singh                                                                 ...Petitioner





                                           Versus




                                                     of
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                    ...Respondent


    Coram                  rt
    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

    For the Petitioner                          :      Mr. B.S. Ahuja, Advocate.

    For the Respondent/State                    :      Mr. Ajit Sharma,                  Deputy



                                                       Advocate General.

    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 29 of 2023, dated 28.02.2023,

registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201

read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short

"IPC").

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

2. It has been asserted that the police registered the FIR

based on the information received from Police Post,

Thakurdwara regarding the discovery of a dead body. The police

arrested the petitioner on 15.03.2023 for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with

Section 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner was not named in the

of FIR. The petitioner's family is suffering due to his continuous

incarceration. The prosecution's story is full of doubts. The rt petitioner is resident of Tehsil & District Pathankot (Punjab) and

has deep roots in the society. He would abide by all the terms and

conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the police received information on 25.02.2023 at

11:55 a.m. regarding the discovery of a dead body in the bushes on

the bank of the Beas River. The police proceeded to the spot and

found the dead body of an unknown female lying in the bushes.

The police seized the body and sent it for post mortem.

According to the postmortem report, multiple injuries were

found on the body, which caused her death. The doctor preserved

the viscera and the samples. Sanjeev Kumar informed the police

on 14.03.2023 that his wife was missing. Photographs of the dead

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

body were shown to him, and he identified it as that of his wife.

He expressed suspicion against the petitioner. The police

arrested the petitioner. The petitioner named Amandeep Singh

and Surjeet Singh, who were subsequently arrested by the police.

The police seized the petitioner's clothes. The petitioner's

daughter stated that the clothes were blood-stained. The police

of also recovered a blood-stained hammer from the petitioner's

vehicle. Blood stains were also found in the driver's cabin. The rt samples were sent to the RFSL, Dharamshala, and according to

the report, human blood and semen were detected on the

underwear of the deceased, the quilt cover, vaginal swab, and

vaginal slides of the deceased. Blood was detected on the left-

hand nail clippings of the deceased. Human blood was also found

in the blood sample of the petitioner. Blood was detected on the

wooden piece, hammer, lower/Pyjama and shirt of the petitioner.

The analyst's report mentioned that the DNA from the vaginal

slides and vaginal swab of the deceased matched the DNA of the

petitioner. The petitioner's DNA was also found on the quilt lying

near the dead body. According to the Medical Officer, the likely

cause of death was "craniospinal trauma." The deceased was last

seen with the petitioner. Money was being withdrawn from her

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

bank account through an ATM. Six ATM cards were recovered

from the petitioner's house. Withdrawals were also made using

the deceased's cheques after her death by the petitioner. As per

the investigation, the petitioner had an illicit relationship with

the deceased. However that she left the petitioner and returned

to her husband, the petitioner became infuriated and killed her. A

of charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Twenty-eight

witnesses out of forty-four have been examined. The matter is rt now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses

on 22.01.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr B. S. Ahuja, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the State.

5. Mr B.S. Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely

implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence

despite the lapse of more than two years. Hence, he prayed that

the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on

bail.

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for

the respondent State, submitted that the petitioner was involved

in the commission of a heinous offence, which is punishable with

death. The DNA of the petitioner was found on the clothes and

vaginal swab of the deceased, indicating his involvement in the

commission of the crime. The prosecution has examined 28

of witnesses, and the matter is now listed for recording the

statements of prosecution evidence on 22.01.2026. Hence, he rt prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

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. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elabo-

rating 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 consid- ered while granting bail, which are extracted as under:

(SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

"7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also perti-

nent. The punishment to which the party may be liable,

if convicted or 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 benignant juris-

diction 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

of 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 rt 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 habitu- als, 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 irrele- vance." (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 ex- tracted 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 cir- cumstances 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 ac-

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

cused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the wit- nesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the

public or State and similar 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 ac- cused and that the prosecution will be able to produce

of 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 rt 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 ju- dicious 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 de- pendent 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 cou- pled 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, how- ever, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (em- phasis 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

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

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 justi-

fying the grant of bail.

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 grant-

of ing 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 rt with an order passed by the High Court granting or reject- ing 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 princi- ples laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circum-

stances, 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 convic-

tion;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if re- leased 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

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of ap-

plication of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the ac-

cused 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, ob-

served as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4

of 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 rt 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 vexa- tious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima fa- cie 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 consider-

ation 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." (em-

phasis supplied)

9. The present petition has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. The status report specifically mentions that the

petitioner's DNA was found in the vaginal swab, vaginal slides

and quilt lying near the dead body. The petitioner was also last

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

seen with the deceased. He was found in possession of the ATM

cards of the deceased. He had withdrawn money from the

account of the deceased after her death. These circumstances,

prima facie, show the petitioner's involvement in the commission

of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which is

punishable with life imprisonment or death. It was laid down by

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public

Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115:

rt 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 re- volve. 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 se-

cure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liber- ated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of

the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this per- spective, 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 magni- tude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of ex- treme severity, 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

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

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 him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his ap-

pearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in

of coming to a determination on that point three ele- ments 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 rt would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence con-

tains 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 vi-

tal factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if con- victed or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the is-

sue.

11. Considering the nature of the offence and the severity

of the punishment, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

12. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress

of the trial and that the petitioner is entitled to bail on this

ground. This submission cannot be accepted. Copies of the order

sheets have not been filed to demonstrate any delay in the

progress of the trial. The status report shows that the statements

of 28 witnesses out of 44 cited by the prosecution have been

( 2025:HHC:44716 )

recorded. Thus, the trial is progressing normally, and there is no

delay.