Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

Bail petitioner, namely Ajay Kumar, who is behind the bars since 09.01.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.12/2026, dated 08.01.2026, under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(2), 190, 191(3) and 191(2) of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur.

In terms of order dated 24.03.2026, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Prem Chand, PS Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 08.01.2026, complainant namely Tinkel Kumar, got his statement recorded under Section 173 of BNSS, stating therein that he is driver in private bus i.e. Bharat Bus Service. He alleged that on 08.01.2026, he was driving the bus, enroute from Dhaneta to Shimla, and had left Dhaneta at 4 a.m. and when reached near Jhaniari, near Shiva Guest House, he found that two vehicles, i.e. XUV and Maruti Swift, were parked in the middle of the road. He alleged that he blew horn towards the said vehicles, but they did not remove their vehicles. He alleged that after two minutes, the bus Conductor, namely Naresh Kumar, and HRTC Driver, namely Hemant, who were travelling in the bus, got down and asked the driver of afore vehicles to get the vehicles moved to the side of the road, however, in the meantime, 10-11 boys got down from the cars, detailed hereinabove, and one girl was also there. Thereafter, they all started giving beatings to Naresh Kumar and Hemant. He alleged that one of the boys threatened to wield sword to do away with the lives of complainant party. Complainant alleged that when he rescued Naresh Kumar and took him to the bus, and locked the bus from inside, the boys started damaging the bus with stick (danda) and also pelted stones on front and side windows of the bus. Complainant alleged that girl present on the spot was asking the boys not to enter into quarrel, but then boys took the girl into XUV and driver of XUV went towards Hamirpur side in very high speed. After 15-20 minutes, remaining boys also went to Hamirpur side in Swift Car. The HRTC bus driver Hemant informed the Police. Police reached on the spot and then they were taken for medical to hospital. When they reached at some distance, then they found that XUV vehicle had met with an accident and the girl in XUV was also found admitted in serious condition in the hospital. In the afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the accused, named in the FIR, including present bail petitioner, who is an Army personnel.

Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that no case much less under Section 109 of BNS is made out against the petitioner because injury on the head of the Conductor Naresh Kumar was caused by another accused namely Sagardeep Singh. Mr. Sharma submitted that though petitioner was present on the spot, but there is nothing on record to suggest that he took active participation in the quarrel, rather he left the spot of incident and thereafter met with an accident. Mr. Sharma submitted that otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by letting the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, especially when guilt, if any, is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He submitted that since petitioner, who had come on leave, is to join back for duty, it may not be in the interest of justice to curtail his freedom for indefinite period during trial, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that he will not attend the trial, as and when called for.

To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum of completion of investigation, stated that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence, alleged to have been committed by the him, he does not deserve any leniency. He stated that since petitioner was also present on the place of occurrence and there is a CCTV footage, showing him to be an active participant, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the investigating agency while registering case under Section 109 read with Section 190 of BNS. While referring to the MLC record, adduced on record, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that person namely Naresh Kumar suffered grievous injury, which could be dangerous to life, after being hit with stone on his head. While making this Court peruse video recording, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to prove that bail petitioner was active participant and he had also attempted to cause injury to the complainant by pelting stones on the bus. While fairly admitting that injured Naresh Kumar has recovered from the injuries and at present, he is out of danger, Mr. Kahol stated that in the event of bail petitioner enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm to complainant as well as other material prosecution witnesses, whose statements are yet to be recorded in the trial Court.

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein, who is an Army personnel, was also present at the spot of occurrence and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated.

Having carefully perused CCTV footage, made available to this Court by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court finds that petitioner was driving one of the cars i.e. XUV and he also attempted to cause harm to complainant, who at relevant time was sitting on the driver seat, by pelting stones. However, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, that injury on the head of person namely Naresh Kumar, which was found to be grievous and dangerous to life, was not caused by petitioner, rather same was caused by co-accused Sagardeep Singh, but since petitioner was also part of the assembly, which had allegedly caused injury on the person of complainant as well as other victims namely Hemant and Naresh Kumar, Police while registering case under Section 109 of BNS, also registered case under Section 190 of BNS. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is an Army personnel, coupled with the fact that in past, no criminal case stands registered against him, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed, especially when it has been admitted at the behest of prosecution that person namely Naresh Kumar, on whose person grievous injury was caused, has recovered and at present, is out of danger. Otherwise also, guilt of the petitioner, if any, is yet to be established on record, by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than three years.

Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, as such, his incarceration in jail for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

(a) he shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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 appropriate application;

(b) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) he shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

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 this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.