Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 09.03.2026 vs State Of H.P on 17 March, 2026
2026:HHC:7498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2445 of 2025
Reserved on: 09.03.2026
.
Date of Decision :17.03.2026
Inderjeet Singh @ Indra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
rt No.
For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Chandel, Senior
Advocate with Mr K.S. Gill,
Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 243 of 2023, dated 10.08.2023,
registered for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 382 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at
Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the
police received information regarding a fight near Idgah on
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:7498
10.08.2023 at about 6:00 p.m. The police went to the spot and
found two people lying on the roadside, soaked in blood. The
.
injured were taken to the hospital. One person was identified as
Kunal baba and was declared ‘brought dead’, while the other
person, Varun, succumbed to his injuries after receiving first
aid. The informant, Lovkesh baba, made a statement to the
of
police that his nephew, Kunal, had received an Instragram call
from Gaurav on 10.08.2023 and he (Kunal) disclosed that Gaurav
rt
was asking him to visit Banga (Punjab). The informant then
talked to Gaurav, who mentioned that Kunal had been posting
stories on his Instagram. The informant assured him that Kunal
would not do so in the future, after which Gaurav disconnected
the call. Kunal called the informant on the same day at about
4:30 p.m. and informed him that Gaurav was coming to
Nalagarh. The informant advised Kunal to stay at home.
Subsequently, the informant received a call from his niece
stating that Kunal and Varun had been stabbed and were lying
near Idgah. There was ongoing tension between Gaurav and
Kunal. Gaurav and his associate had killed them with a sharp-
edged weapon. The police investigated the matter and arrested
Gaurav and the petitioner. The matter was listed on 17.12.2025
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:7498
for prosecution evidence. There has been a delay in the trial, and
the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. No Test
.
Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, which renders the
prosecution’s case suspect. The petitioner belongs to a
respectable family and undertakes to abide by all the terms and
conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it is prayed that
of
the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on
bail.
3.
rt
The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police received an information on 10.08.2023
at about 6:00 p.m. regarding a fight near Idgah on Ramshehar
Road. The police reached the spot and found two people lying in
an injured condition. They were taken to the hospital. The
Medical Officer declared Kunal dead, while Varun succumbed to
his injuries during treatment. The informant, Lovkesh, made a
statement to the police stating that Varun and Kunal were his
nephews. Kunal had received a call from Gaurav. Kunal told the
informant that Gaurav was asking him to visit Banga (Punjab).
The informant spoke to Gaurav, who stated that Kunal had been
uploading stories on his Instagram account. The informant
assured Gaurav that Kunal would not upload any story in the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:7498
future. The informant again received a call at about 4:30 p.m.
from Kunal, who informed him that Gaurav was visiting
.
Nalagarh. The informant advised Kunal to stay at home. At about
6:00 p.m., the informant received a call stating that Kunal and
Varun had been stabbed and were lying near Idgah. The police
registered the FIR and started the investigation. The Medical
of
Officer stated that the cause of death of Varun was hemorrhagic
shock and liver laceration due to antemortem injuries. The
rt
Medical Officer further stated that the cause of death of Kunal
was spleen rupture and hemorrhagic shock as a result of
antemortem injuries. During the investigation, the police found
that Gaurav, Inderjit Singh @ Indra, and one unknown person
had used a motorcycle bearing registration number PB-08FB-
9802 to commit the crime. The police obtained the call detail
records and found that Gaurav was in touch with Inderjit Singh
@ Indra, son of Surjit Singh. The police arrested Inderjit Singh,
who revealed the involvement of Gaurav and Inderjit Singh, son
of Bablir Singh (the present petitioner). The police searched for
the other accused and seized the motorcycle bearing registration
number PB-08FB-9802 at Amritsar. The police later arrested
Gaurav Gill and the petitioner, Inderjit Singh. They disclosed the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:7498
involvement of Akashdeep Singh. The motorcycle bearing
registration number PB-08FB-9802 was found to be registered
.
in the name of the petitioner. The police also arrested
Akashdeep Singh and recovered one iPhone from his possession,
which belonged to Varun. Petitioner Inderjit Singh revealed that
he had handed over the knife to Gaurav Gill. Gaurav Gill made a
of
disclosure statement and got the knife recovered. Akashdeep
produced a T-shirt, which was seized by the police. No case was
rt
found against Inderjit Singh, son of Surjit Singh, and he was
discharged. The call detail records showed the presence of the
petitioner and the other accused at Nalagarh on the date of the
incident. The Medical Officer issued the final report stating that
the injuries noticed could have been caused by means of a knife.
Human blood was found on the knife, and the DNA on the knife
completely matched the DNA of Varun. The face of Gaurav Gill in
the photograph matched the face seen in the CCTV footage. The
clothes also matched the clothes worn by the person seen in the
CCTV footage. The CCTV footage was found to be continuous and
without any editing. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:7498
Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent/State.
.
5. Mr N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the
petitioner with the commission of crime. The knife/dagger
of
stated to have been recovered by the police was recovered from
Gaurav Gill and not the petitioner. No Test Identification Parade
rt
was conducted, and the petitioner’s face was not found in the
CCTV footage. The police arrested the petitioner based on
suspicion. The petitioner has remained in prison for more than
two years, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated.
Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the
petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General,
for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was
identified on the spot by the witnesses. The name of Gaurav Gill
was disclosed by the petitioner, and the recovery made from him
would be admissible against the petitioner. The knife/dagger
was used in the commission of the crime, and the DNA on the
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:7498
knife matched the DNA of Varun. The petitioner’s involvement
in the commission of the crime is, prima facie, proved on record;
.
hence, he prayed that the 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
of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC
314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page
rt
380: –
(i)Broad principles for the grant of bail
56.InGudikantiNarasimhuluv.High Court of A.P., (1978) 1
SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., whileelaborating on the content of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of
a person under trial, has laid down the key factors thatshould be considered while granting bail, which are
extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is
the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may beliable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.
8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being.
[Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England”
(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 —
Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:7498
9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering
with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting
the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational,
.
in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man
who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad
record, particularly a record which suggests that he is
likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard
to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of
of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhativ.State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
rt
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means
and standing of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the
words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:7498
will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of
the charge.” (emphasis supplied)
58. This Court inRam Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
.
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously.
In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter
of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed
as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
of
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order
for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
rt
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case
to case. While the placement of the accused in society,
though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding
factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should
always be coupled with other circumstances warranting
the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the
basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more
heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection
of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkarv.Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application
cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the
court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
justifying the grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkarv.Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the
said order would suffer from the vice of non-application
of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:7498
with regard to the circumstances under which an order
granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors
which ought to have guided the Court’s decision to grant
bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9).
“9. …It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretionjudiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among otherof
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
rt offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v)character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
accused is Brijmani Deviv. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497:
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of
this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:7498order (Pappu Kumarv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2856 and Pappu Singhv. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused,
observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar,.
(2022) 4 SCC 497: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para
35)
“35.While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time whileconsidering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused
and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly,of
when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate
material brought on record so as to enable a court to
arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an
rt
application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion
must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at afterhaving regard to the vital facts of the case brought on
record. Due consideration must be given to facts
suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents
of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment thatwould follow a conviction vis-Ã -vis the offence(s) alleged
against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC
261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the
gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests
otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not
jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences
or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:7498who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not
intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is
likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of.
justice and must weigh with us when considering the
question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime….”
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
of
11. Witness Mohamad Nisar told the police that he had
seen three boys beating two other boys. He tried to rescue them,
but the assailants ran away from the spot. Gulshan Kumar stated
rt
that Gaurav and two other persons had visited the shop of
Prince. Subsequently, Gulshan Kumar and Ankit identified
Akashdeep Singh, Gaurav Gill, and the petitioner, Inderjit Singh,
in the presence of witnesses.
12. It was submitted that the Test Identification Parade
was not conducted and that the identification should have been
carried out in the presence of learned Magistrate. However, it is
not necessary to adjudicate this submission at this stage because
a Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of
evidence but only a corroborative piece of evidence2. The
primary evidence is the identification made in Court, and if the
2
Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1061
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:7498
Court is impressed by the identification made before it, it can
rely upon such identification even though no previous Test
.
Identification Parade was conducted3. Further, it is a question of
fact whether the witnesses had an adequate opportunity to
identify the accused at the spot, which can be adjudicated during
the trial and not during the present proceedings.
of
13. Suffice it to say that the statements of Gulshan
Kumar, Mohamad Nisar and Ankit Kumar, prima facie, show the
rt
petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime.
14. The petitioner disclosed that Gaurav Gill had used
the knife/dagger. The police arrested Gaurav Gill and recovered
a knife/dagger at his instance. It was laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC
640: (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 412: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, that the
information given by the accused, leading to the discovery of
another accused from whom forged currency notes were
recovered, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act. It was observed at page 646: –
“15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information
furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz, and other
3
Jayawant Dattatraya Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 109
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:7498
accused, Anju Ali was arrested. The fact that Anju Ali was
dealing with forged currency notes was not known to the
police. The statements of both the accused have led to the
discovery of the fact and arrest of the co-accused, not
.
known to the police. They identified him, and ultimately,
statements have led to unearthing the racket of the use of
fake currency notes. Thus, the information furnished by
the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is
clearly admissible, which has led to the identification and
arrest of accused Anju Ali, and as already stated,
possession of Anju Ali’s fake currency notes had been
of
recovered. As per information furnished by the accused
Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Exts. P-41 and P-42, the
fact has been discovered by the police as to the
involvement of the accused Anju Ali, which was not
rt
known to the knowledge of the police. The police were not
aware of the accused Anju Ali, as well as the fact that he
was dealing with fake currency notes, which were
recovered from him. Thus, the statement of the aforesaid
accused Mehboob and Firoz is clearly saved by Section 27
of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by Section 27 of the
Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the instant case. The
statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery
of facts proving complicity of the other accused persons,
and the entire chain of circumstances clearly makes out
that the accused acted in conspiracy, as found by the trial
court as well as the High Court.
xxxxxxx
20. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it is apparent that
there was a discovery of a fact as per the statement of
Mehmood Ali and Mohd. Firoz. The co-accused was
nabbed on the basis of an identification made by the
accused Mehboob and Firoz. That he was dealing with
fake currency notes came to the knowledge of the police
through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was also
made from Anju Ali. Thus, the aforesaid accused had the
knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali, who was nabbed at
their instance and based on their identification. These
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
15
2026:HHC:7498
facts were not to the knowledge of the police, hence the
statements of the accused persons leading to the
discovery of the fact are clearly admissible as per the
provisions contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
.
which carves out an exception to the general provisions
about inadmissibility of confession made under police
custody contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
Act.”
15. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner
leading to the discovery of the co-accused and the knife/dagger
of
would be prima facie admissible.
16. The petitioner is, prima facie, involved in the
rt
commission of murder, which is punishable with capital
punishment. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that
when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail.
It was observed at page 244:
“6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true
principle around which other relevant factors must revolve.
When the case is finally disposed of and a person is
sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different
footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and
the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure
the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to
take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court
punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the
relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with
the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:7498sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated
that when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been
sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment
for it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the Court may.
reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no
amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at
the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law
Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurredin this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the
order of priorities as follows: [Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51]
“I do not think that an accused party is detained inof
custody because of his guilt, but because there are
sufficient probable grounds for the charge against
him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and
because the detention is necessary to ensure his
appearance at trial …. It is a very important element in
rt considering whether the party, if admitted to bail,
would appear to take his trial; and I think that incoming to a determination on that point three
elements will generally be found the most important:
the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is
supported, and the punishment to which the partywould be liable if convicted. In the present case, the
charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains
an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the
charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law,death.”
7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital
factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The
punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or
conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
17. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress
of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the
violation of his right to a speedy trial. This submission cannot be
accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS
17
2026:HHC:7498
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3
SCC (Cri) 425: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1363 that the period of
.
incarceration would not by itself entitle a person to bail in a
crime like murder. It was observed at page 141:
“24. As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for the grant
of bail to the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions
Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In
crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was inof
custody for more than one year may not be a relevant
consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of
Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 7775:(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743], it was
observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not
rt
entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was
reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688″
18. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to
bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial.
19. No other point was urged.
20. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to
bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.
21. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
17th March, 2026.
(ravinder)
::: Downloaded on – 17/03/2026 20:33:36 :::CIS