Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 07.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 May, 2025

2025:HHC:14186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 774 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025.

    Neha Kumari                                                                  ...Petitioner
                                           Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                    ...Respondent


    Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was

arrested vide FIR No. 11 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025, registered for

the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2),

115(2), 103(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS),

2023, at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District

Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused Som

Chand had given beatings to Bhura Ram and the informant

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

2025:HHC:14186

Kalawati. Bhura Ram developed pain in his stomach. He was taken

to the Medical College, Nahan and PGI Chandigarh. He died on

15.2.2025 in his home. The petitioner is a woman. She has two

children aged 4 and 6 years. Her parents-in-law are aged 72 and

75 years, and are unable to take care of the minors. The petitioner

belongs to a respectable family. She has roots in the society. She

is 28 years old. She would abide by the terms and conditions,

which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police

stating that he had gone to his field on 22.1.2025 at about 5.30 PM.

Som Chand started abusing him and his wife. The informant

inquired as to why the accused, Som Chand, was abusing him.

Neha (present petitioner) and Som Chand gave beatings to the

informant. The informant sustained injuries. He was taken to the

Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, from where he was referred to PGI,

Chandigarh. Kalawati made a statement that she had gone to her

village, where Som Chand and his wife, Neha, arrived and accused

him of damaging the 'dhol'. Bhura Ram came to the field at 5.30

PM. Som Chand and Neha repeated their allegations regarding

damage to the Dhol. Som Chand and Neha gave beatings to Bhura

2025:HHC:14186

Ram. Neha pushed Bhura Ram to the ground, and Som Chand

inflicted injuries upon him. Bhura Ram was taken to the hospital,

from where he was referred to Nahan and ultimately to PGI,

Chandigarh. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death

was the presence of a draining pipe for the abdominal

inflammation in the pancreas. The death was a sequel to blunt

trauma to the pancreas, leading to pancreatitis. As per the final

opinion, no marks of injury were found at the time of

examination of the body, and the weapon of injury could not be

commented upon.

3. I have heard Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely

implicated. As per the status report, the beatings were given by

Som Chand. The death was caused after a considerable delay and

cannot be attributed to the injuries. Therefore, he prayed that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2025:HHC:14186

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner

had pushed the deceased to the ground while her husband gave

beatings to him. This shows that both the accused were acting in

concert and the accused/petitioner is liable under Section 3(5) of

BNS. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not

entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be

dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

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

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

"12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the

2025:HHC:14186

witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

"14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice", has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied)

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose "any condition" on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: --

"15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed." (Emphasis supplied)

14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed:

"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the

2025:HHC:14186

realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial." (Emphasis supplied)

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

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. The status report shows that the petitioner and her

husband had given beatings to the deceased, who died

subsequently due to the blunt trauma to the pancreas. Hence,

prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. The said offence

is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature

of the offence and the punishment prescribed, the petitioner is

not entitled to bail.

2025:HHC:14186

10. It was submitted that the petitioner had not inflicted