Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bheem Chand vs State Of H.P on 20 May, 2025

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

1( 2025:HHC:14609 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.969 to 973 of 2025 Reserved on:- 15.05.2025 Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 Cr.MP(M) No.969 of 2025

Bheem Chand ...Applicant

Versus

State of H.P. .....Respondent ________________________________________________

Cr.MP(M) No.970 of 2025

Meghnath ...Applicant

Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent ________________________________________________

Cr.MP(M) No.971 of 2025

Nikhil Kumar ...Applicant

Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent ________________________________________________

Cr.MP(M) No.972 of 2025

Hukam Singh ...Applicant

Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent ________________________________________________

Madan Lal ...Applicant

Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent 2( 2025:HHC:14609 )

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Karanveer Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Duni Chand, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

Virender Singh, Judge

The above-titled bail applications are being disposed

of by this common order, as, all the bail applications have been

filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.87 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025

(hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR in question'), registered under

Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the

'BNS') with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

2. The above-mentioned bail applications have been

filed, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for releasing the

above named applicants, on bail, in the FIR in question, during

the pendency of the case.

3. According to the applicants, they are innocent

persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present case.

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

3( 2025:HHC:14609 )

4. In addition to this, they have also pleaded that in the

MLC, only laceration was found on the left side face of

complainant-Sohan Lal and according to the applicants, the said

injury is simple in nature.

5. According to the applicants, they had earlier tried

their luck by moving similar applications, before the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan,

H.P. However, the same were dismissed, vide order dated

16.04.2025.

6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior

Advocate, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, has

prayed that during the pendency of the trial, the applicants may

be released on bail and has given certain undertakings, on

behalf of applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide

by, in case, the relief, as claimed in the applications, is given to

them.

7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status

report, disclosing therein, that on 15.03.2025, an information was

received in Police Post, Joghon, regarding the admission of

Sohan Lal, in the hospital, in a case of quarrel. As such, HC

Ranjit Singh No.2 reached at CHC Nalagarh, where, Sohan Lal,

Jagat Ram and Dheeraj Ranaut, were found to have been 4( 2025:HHC:14609 )

brought for treatment, on being injured, in a quarrel. Thereafter,

their MLCs were obtained from the hospital. Statement of

complainant-Jagat Ram was got recorded, under Section 173 of

BNSS, disclosing therein, that on 15.03.2025, at about 9:22 AM,

when, he was returning back after supplying the milk at Panjehra

Milk Dairy, then, he heard the sound of screaming from the

house of Madan Lal and after some time, he noticed that his

wife, namely Rajesh Bala, was coming from the house of Madan

Lal.

7.1. On inquiry, his wife disclosed that Madan Lal

(applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.973 of 2025), Bheem Chand,

(applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.969 of 2025), Hukam Singh (applicant

in Cr.MP(M) No.972 of 2025), Meghnath (applicant in Cr.MP(M)

No.970 of 2025) and his two sons namely Nikhil (applicant in

Cr.MP(M) No.971 of 2025) and Jassi, and their daughters-in-law,

namely Nisha, Seema Sakandra Devi, Rishma Devi and Bina

Devi, were quarreling with Sohan Lal. They were having sticks

(Dandas) and axes, in their hands. Thereafter, the complainant,

along with his sons, Dheeraj Ranaut, Manav and Jatindra

Sharma, had gone to the house of Madan Lal and noticed that

the above persons were beating his brother Sohan Lal. They 5( 2025:HHC:14609 )

had also attacked on the complainant. Consequently,

complainant and his son Dheeraj Ranaut, had sustained injuries.

7.2. During the said quarrel, Madan Lal (applicant in

Cr.MP(M) No.973 of 2025) inflicted axe blow on the head of

Sohan Lal, Hukam Singh (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.972 of

2025) was having a Darat (big sickle) in his hand, Meghnath

(applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.970 of 2025) was having a hoe

(Kudali) in his hand, Nikhil (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No.971 of

2025) was having a Barcha/rod in his hand, Jassi was having a

sword, whereas, ladies were having Dandas in their hands. With

great difficulty, complainant had come out from there.

Thereafter, the complainant took his brother Sohan Lal to the

hospital for treatment. Upon this, the police registered the case,

under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) and 118(1), of

BNS, 2023 and the criminal machinery swung into motion.

7.3. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer visited the spot

and prepared the spot map. The photographs were clicked.

Subsequently, the statements of the witnesses, under Section

180 of BNSS were recorded. On the spot, from the courtyard of

Madan Lal, a blood stained, bamboo stick was found in broken

condition, which was taken into possession. At a short distance,

over a stone, embedded in the land, blood stains noticed. As 6( 2025:HHC:14609 )

such, the blood stains were lifted from the stone, with the help of

cotton and put in the plastic box. Similarly, the blood stains,

found on the tiles of the passage, leading to the house of Madan

Lal, were also collected. Thereafter, the accused persons,

namely Hukam Singh, Bheem Chand, Madan Lal, Meghnath and

Nikhil Kumar (applicants), were associated in the investigation

and were arrested on 15.03.2025. They were also medico-lyally

examined. They were produced before the Court, from where

they were remanded to police custody.

7.4. During the police applicant, accused Hukam Singh

made a statement, under Section 23 of Bhartiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam (BSA), disclosing therein, that he could get recovered

the weapons of offence i.e. Darats (Big Sickle), axe, hoe and

Jhabal, as, he is having the knowledge of the same. Thereafter,

in pursuance of the said statement, he got recovered the above

articles, which were allegedly kept under the stairs, situated

outside the house of Madan Lal and were taken into possession.

Spot map of the same was prepared.

7.5 During the investigation, the opinion of Medical

Officer, Nalagarh, was obtained with regard to the MLC of Sohan

Lal, who has declared the injuries of Sohan Lal, as grievous,

caused by sharp edged weapon.

7( 2025:HHC:14609 )

7.6. It is the further case of the police that other accused,

namely Nisha, Seema Sakandra Devi, Reshma Devi, Beena

Devi and Jassi, are absconded and are yet to be arrested.

7.7. Lastly, it has been pleaded that there is inter se

dispute, between the parties, regarding the passage and due to

this fact, FIR No.88 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, under Sections

115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2) and 352 of BNS, was

also registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.,

in which, the investigation is going on.

7.8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been

made to dismiss the bail applications.

7.9. Investigation, in the present case, is almost

complete.

8. Considering the fact that against the complainant

party, FIR has also been got lodged by the accused persons by

lodging FIR No.88 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, registered with

Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., this Court is of the

view that the role, allegedly played by the accused persons, in

the commission of crime, would be proved, during the trial.

9. Even otherwise, the Medical Officer has declared the

injuries on the person of injured Sohan Lal as grievous, caused

by the sharp edged weapon. This Court is of the view that no 8( 2025:HHC:14609 )

useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in

judicial custody, that too, for the indefinite period, as the chances

of commencement and conclusion of the trial against the

applicants, in near future, are not so bright. Moreover, pre-trial

punishment is prohibited under the law.

10. Since, no other case is stated to have been

registered against the applicants, as such, the presumption of

innocence is still available to them.

11. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view

that the bail applications are liable to be allowed and are

accordingly allowed.

12. Consequently, the applicants are ordered to be

released, on bail, in case FIR No.87 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025,

registered under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) and

118(1), of BNS, 2023, with Police Station Nalagarh, District

Solan, H.P., on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each of the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nalagarh.

13. This order, however, shall be subject to the following

conditions:-

a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and 9( 2025:HHC:14609 )

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 applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

c) The applicants 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