[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision:-01.12.2025 vs State Of H.P on 1 December, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.2771 of 2025
Date of Decision:-01.12.2025
Hanuman Nath ...Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. .....Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. Pranshul Sharma and Mr.
Mukesh Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional
Advocates General, with Mr.
Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna
Patial, Deputy Advocates
General, assisted by HC.
Harsh Thakur, No.48, P.S.
Shalaghat, District Shimla,
H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge
By way of the present application, filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), applicant-
Hanuman Nath has sought his release, on bail, during the
pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.47 of 2025,
dated 10.06.2025, registered under Section 25 of the
Arms Act and Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190,
191(2), 191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS'), with
Police Station, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. The relief of the bail has been sought on the
ground that the applicant has been arrested, in a false
case and presently, he is in judicial custody.
3. According to the applicant, he is innocent
person and has no connection, whatsoever, with the crime
in question. He has termed the case of the prosecution, as
highly doubtful and according to him, nothing is to be
recovered from him.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that the
investigation, in the case is completed. All these facts
have been pleaded to show that no useful purpose would
be served, by keeping the applicant, in judicial custody.
5. In addition to this, he has also stated that the
present case is nothing, but, counter blast to the case FIR
No.46 of 2025, dated 09.06.2025, registered under
Sections 332-C, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS.
6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Pranshul
Sharma and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocates, appearing
for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on
3. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to
abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during
the pendency of the trial.
7. The applicant had earlier tried his luck by
moving similar application, before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan,
Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed,
vide order dated 11.07.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that the co-accused of the applicant has
already been released on bail, by this Court, vide orders
dated 09.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in Cr.MP(M)
Nos.1773 & 2499 of 2025, hence, the applicant is entitled
to the relief of bail, on the ground of parity also.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the bail application.
10. When, put to notice, the police has filed the
status report, disclosing therein, that on 09.06.2025, an
information regarding the scuffle/quarrel had been
received in the Police Station, upon which, the then,
Incharge Moti Singh, along with other police officials, in
4. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
order to verify the facts reached at Arki Hospital, where,
Vijay Kumar and Mahender Kumar, were found to be
admitted for treatment.
10.1. During verification, one Chandni, moved a
complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of
village Kanderli, Post office Bhararighat, Tehsil Arki,
District Solan, H.P., whereas, Hanuman Nath (applicant)
is their neighbourer and their houses are adjoining to
each other.
10.2. According to the complainant, they had fenced
their land. On 09.06.2025, Hanuman Nath (applicant)
along with his wife, Neelam and sons Triloki, Raghu, Sibu,
who were having sticks, in their hands, came and started
removing the fence, upon which, complainant, along with
her husband, Vijay had gone to prevent them, from doing
so, they had started quarreling with them.
10.3. Her brother-in-law (Devar) namely Mahender
Kumar was also beaten by them, due to which, he has
sustained injury. Vijay had gone to save him, then, he
was also beaten by them and threatenings were given to
kill him. At that time, Hanuman Nath (applicant) said to
5. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
Triloki to bring gun, upon which, his wife and sons also
instigated him to bring gun and on their instigation,
Trilok Nath brought gun and fired at Vijay with the
intention to kill. He has made two fires, the gun shot hit
the face of Vijay, due to which, he fell down. The
complainant took him up to the road, from where, he was
brought to Arki Hospital.
10.4. On the basis of the above facts, he has prayed
that action be taken against them, upon which, the police
registered the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act and
Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238,
351(2), 352 of BNS, and further investigation was
entrusted to SI Ankush Sharma. Neelam Devi had also
lodged the FIR No.46 of 2025, dated 09.06.2025,
registered under Sections 332(C), 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
10.5. On 09.06.2025, MLCs of Vijay Kumar and
Mahender Kumar were obtained. The Medical Officer had
referred Vijay Kumar for further treatment to IGMC
Shimla and Mahender Kumar was directed to get his X-
Ray done. Vijay Kumar, along with his wife, Chandni was
sent to IGMC Shimla. On 10.06.2025, at the instance of
6. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
Mahender Kumar, spot was visited and spot map was
prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded
under Section 180 of BNSS.
10.6. On 09.06.2025, in FIR No.46 of 2025,
applicant-Hanuman Nath, Jaiswal, Neelam Jaiswal,
Raghu Nath and Shivnath were medico-legally examined
at Arki Hospital, whereas, Shivnath was referred to IGMC,
Shimla, for further treatment.
10.7. In FIR No.46 of 2025, the opinion of Doctor
was obtained from MLCs and the doctor has declared the
injuries on the person of all the accused persons, as
simple. At the instance of Triloki Nath, spot was visited
and spot map was prepared.
10.8. On 10.06.2025, X-Ray of Mahender Kumar was
got conducted in Arki Hospital and report was obtained.
The injuries found on the persons, were declared to be
simple. In FIR No.46 of 2025, statements of accused
persons, applicant-Hanuman Nath, Neelam Jaiswal,
Raghunath, Trilokinath, and Shivnath were recorded.
Thereafter the accused persons were arrested.
7. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
10.9. On 11.06.2025, accused persons were
produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, from where, they were
remanded to police custody, till 13.06.2025. Accused
Hanuman Nath was taken to village Kandreli, where,
weapon of offence was searched, but, the same was not
found. Despite repeated inquires, accused persons were
not disclosing, anything about the weapon used by them.
10.10. On 24.06.2025, injured-Vijay Kumar, along
with complainant-Chandni, appeared before the police
and submitted the Pen drive, which was allegedly
containing the video of the scuffle. The said video was
recorded by the complainant- Chandni, with her mobile
phone.
10.11. As per the police, in one video, Raghunath was
seen removing the fence, which was bone of the
contention between the parties and in another video,
Neelam Devi was seen while concealing weapon(gun) in
her shirt. The Medical Officer of IGMC, Shimla, also
preserved four pellets, which were taken into possession.
The pellets were sent to SFSL, Junga.
8. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
10.12. Except the present case, no other case has
been found to be registered against Shivnath.
10.13. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the
investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been
completed and the charge sheet has been filed on
05.08.2025, before the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Arki. The matter is now listed for
Consideration of Charge on 03.12.2025, in the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P.
11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the application.
12. The investigation, in the present case, is stated
to be completed and from the fact that the charge sheet
has been filed, it can be inferred, at this stage, that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer
required. No specific role has been attributed against the
applicant, with the crime in question.
13. Considering the pleaded facts by the police, it
was a free fight, as both the parties have lodged FIR,
against each other. It would be proved during the trial, as
to which party was the aggressor.
9. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
14. Co-accused Neelam Devi and Shiv Nath have
also been released on bail, by this Court, on 09.09.2025
and 31.10.2025, in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1773 & 2499 of 2025.
As such, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is
entitled for the relief, as claimed, in the application.
15. The applicant is permanent resident of District
Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he
is released on bail, he may not be available for the trial.
16. The bail application cannot be rejected, merely
as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is
prohibited under the law and the punishment can only be
inflicted, after the conclusion of trial.
17. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the
view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed.
18. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be
released on bail, in case FIR No.47 of 2025, dated
10.06.2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms
Act and Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2),
191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of BNS, with Police Station,
Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing
10. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P.
19. This order, however, shall be subject to the
following conditions:-
a) The applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court
on each and every date of hearing and if prevented
by any reason to do so, seek exemption from
appearance by filing the appropriate application;
b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in
any manner whatsoever;
c) The applicant shall not make any inducement,
threat or promises to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer;
and
d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India
without the prior permission of the Court.
20. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations are confined,
only to the disposal of the present bail application.
21. It is made clear that respondent-State is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.
11. ( 2025:HHC:40940 )
22. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy
of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail,
Solan, District Solan, H.P., through e-mail, with a
direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison
software.
23. In case, the applicant is not released within a
period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the
Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan,
H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA,
Solan, District Solan, H.P. The Superintendent of Jail,
Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P, Himachal Pradesh, is
further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the
bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a
period of one month from today, then, the said fact be
submitted to this Court.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
December 01, 2025
(subhash)
PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.01
