Parmod Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the applicant/bail petitioner for grant of bail on medical grounds in case FIR No. 320 of 2023, dated 5.10.2023, registered with PS Una, Sadar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 323 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959.

Respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner herein is accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 304 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 and since 6.10.2023, he is behind the bars.

Vide order dated 18.2.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner herein was granted interim bail upto 1.4.2025 on medical grounds, however, during afore period, allegedly bail petitioner extended threats to one of the witnesses, as a result thereof, application came to be filed before the court below for cancellation of bail. Vide order dated 27.3.2025, learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Una, rejected the application taking note of report submitted by the police station concerned, wherein it specifically came to be stated that allegations with regard to extension of threats made by the complainant have not been found genuine. Moreover, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing order dated 27.3.2025 was also conscious of the fact that only two days had left to expire the term for which petitioner was granted interim bail. Petitioner after his having surrendered in terms of order dated 27.3.2025 again filed present bail petition for regular bail on the ground that it may not be safe to keep him in jail for an indefinite period during trial on account of multiple ailments.

Having taken note of averments contained in the bail petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this court vide order dated 1.12.2025 directed the Superintendent of Jail, Bangarh, Una, to file status report, specifically stating therein opinion with regard to medical condition of the petitioner.

In terms of aforesaid order, communication dated 27.12.2025, issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Superintendent of Jail, District Jail Una at Bangarh, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith communication dated 6.12.2025 issued by the Medical Board, Regional Hospital, Una, came to be placed before this Court. Though in the afore report, this Court came to be informed that petitioner is suffering from Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) and a Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) of 30–35%, along with cervical spondylitis and vertebroplasty fracture but since no specific opinion was rendered by the Medical Board with regard to day-to-day management of diseases suffered by the petitioner in jail, this Court passed order dated 29.12.2025, thereby directing the learned Additional Advocate General to have specific opinion from the Medical Board as to “whether there is any imminent threat to the life of the petitioner on account of the ailments suffered by him or whether such ailments can be managed in jail or by taking the petitioner to nearby hospitals in the ordinary course?”

Pursuant to afore direction issued by this Court, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 6.1.2026, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Superintendent of Jail, District Jail Una at Bangarh, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith opinion dated 5.1.2026, rendered by the Medical Superintendent, Regional Hospital Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:

“Kindly refer to your office letter No. 40 dated 03.01.2026 on the subject cited above. In this regard, it is submitted that the point-wise reply, as desired in the above-referred letter, is as under:-

(1) The patient is suffering from coronary artery disease with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (30-35%) and Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and other ailments. In view of multiple co-morbid conditions, the patient is at high risk of developing serious complications.

(ii) Considering the above-mentioned Medical conditions, treatment and management of the patient within the jail setup may be difficult and may pose significant medical challenges.

(iii) During the previous year, the patient was admitted on three occasions to Regional Hospital Una and PGIMER Chandigarh for treatment. In view of the nature and severity of his médical conditions, it is essential that he undergoes regular medical evaluation and follow-up at appropriate intervals in a hospital setting outside the jail, so as to ensure proper monitoring and timely management.”

Careful perusal of afore opinion clearly reveals that bail petitioner is at present suffering from coronary artery disease with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (30-35%) and Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and other ailments. In view of multiple co-morbid conditions, the patient is at high risk of developing serious complications. Taking note of the aforesaid medical condition of the petitioner, Medical Board has categorically opined that treatment and management of the patient within the jail setup may be difficult and may pose significant medical challenges.

While rendering aforesaid opinion, Medical Board has taken note of the fact that during previous year, the patient was admitted on three occasions to Regional Hospital Una and PGIMER Chandigarh for treatment. In view of the nature and severity of his medical condition, it is essential for him to undergo regular medical evaluation and follow-up at appropriate intervals in a hospital outside the jail, so as to ensure proper monitoring and timely management.

Though Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, vehemently argued that diseases of the petitioner can be easily managed in the hospital as has been done in the past, but having taken note of specific opinion rendered by the Medical Board as detailed herein above, this court is not persuaded to agree with him. True, it is that petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, but having taken note of his age i.e. 74 years, coupled with the fact that he is suffering from multiple ailments, this court is persuaded to accept the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on medical grounds.

Petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years and considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial. If during afore period, he is left to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, it may pose serious threat to his life as has been pointed by the Medical Board. Though at this stage, Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that statements of material prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses, but such apprehension of him can always be taken care of while putting him to stringent conditions.

Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but for the reasons as have been taken note herein above, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than two years and is suffering from multiple diseases.

No doubt, in the instant case, petitioner is accused of having indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact upon the society, but mere gravity of offence cannot be the sole criteria to reject the bail rather certain other factors are also required to be taken into consideration. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Jeet Ram v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2003(HP) 23, wherein it has been held as under:-

“7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question.

In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh 10 caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under :

"........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased.

There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal."

In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise :

"Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail."

In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused 11 such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.”

“12.There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account”.

Repeatedly, Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in a catena of judgments that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law, as such, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, for an indefinite period, especially when petitioner, who is behind the bars for more than two years is suffering from multiple ailments.

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, the 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.2,00,000/- 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 bail 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.