Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 June, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19369 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 1235 of 2025
Reserved on: 17.06.2025
Date of Decision: 23.06.2025.
Gurcharan Singh ...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. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional
Advocate General with ASI Vinod
Kumar, I/C PS Sadar, Chamba, H.P.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025
registered at Police Station Sadar District Chamba, H.P. for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
238 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely
implicated. He was arrested on 24.01.2025 and has been in
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
custody since then. The petitioner has not committed the offence
alleged against him. As per the prosecution, the informant and
Pawan Kumar were returning to their home. An unknown person
came with a stick and inflicted a blow on the head of Pawan
Kumar. Pawan Kumar fell. He was taken to the hospital. The
petitioner is a permanent resident of District Lakhimpur Khiri
(UP), and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by
all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence,
the petition.
3. The petitioner is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the informant and Pawan Kumar were walking
together on 23.01.2025. When they reached near Pir Panjal at
about 6:15 pm, an unknown person came from the opposite side
carrying a stick. He enquired from Pawan Kumar as to where he
was going. Pawan Kumar said that he was going to the house of
his uncle, Kewal Kumar. The unknown person inflicted an injury
with the stick on the head of Pawan Kumar. The unknown person
ran away from the spot. The police registered the FIR and
conducted the investigation. The petitioner was apprehended by
the local police. He revealed his name as Gurcharan Singh. He was
identified by the informant as the assailant. Pawan Kumar was
3
taken to the hospital, and as per the report, the injuries sustained
by him were dangerous to life. The victim had sustained a fracture
on the left side of the frontal bone. He had also consumed alcohol,
and its quantity was found to be 129.73 mg ± 1.80. The police have
filed the charge sheet. The matter is listed for recording the
statements of the prosecution witnesses on 09.07.2025,
14.07.2025 and 16.07.2025. The trial is yet to commence. The
offence is heinous; therefore, it was prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
5. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely
implicated. The victim was intoxicated, and the possibility of
sustaining the injury by way of a fall cannot be ruled out. The
charge sheet has been filed, and no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released
on bail.
4
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner
had caused a grievous injury to the informant’s head, which was
dangerous to life. The offence is heinous, and the petitioner is
likely to commit the crime in case of his release on bail; therefore,
he 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in a
matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations
made against the accused, the manner in which the crime
is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of
the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of
justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused
on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman
Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri)
1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC
5(Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P.,
(2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 558] .]
9. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:
“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
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
6impede 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, and 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 bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
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
7standing 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)
10. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. As per the prosecution’s case, the assailant was an
unknown person. He was identified by the informant in the
presence of the police. Prima facie, the identification of the
accused in the presence of the police is inadmissible, being hit by
Section 181 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
corresponding to Section 162 of Cr. P.C2.
13. As per the allegations in the FIR, the victim was not
known to the petitioner. The petitioner had inflicted a single
injury on the head without any reason by means of a stick. The
police added Section 109 because the Medical Officer opined that
the injury was dangerous to life. An injury which is dangerous to
life falls within the purview of Section 116(h) of the BNS and is
2
Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733
8
punishable under Section 117(2) of the BNS3; hence, prima facie
the allegations do not make out a case for the commission of an
offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS; hence, the plea that
the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous; which is
severely punishable is not acceptable.
14. It is undisputed that the police have filed the charge
sheet before the Court; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Keeping in view the
nature of the offence, the further detention of the petitioner in
custody is not justified.
15. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following
conditions:
(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 and will not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
3
Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab 1980 Crim. L.J. 1220
9
(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 concerned Police
Station and the Court.
(iv) The petitioner will furnish his 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.
16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty
or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the
investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for
cancellation of the bail.
17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the
disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on
the case’s merits.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of
this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District-Cum-Open
Air Jail, Chamba, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the
10
petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity
of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may
be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
23rd June, 2025
(saurav pathania)
Digitally signed by
KARAN SINGH
GULERIA
Date: 2025.06.23
14:54:44 NPT