inkinccorporation@gmail.com Himachal Pradesh High Court
Charan Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:5022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 of 2026
.
Date of Decision: 28.02.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Cr. MP (M) No. 60 of 2026
Charan Dass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of
2.Cr. MP (M) No. 61 of 2026
Abhimanyu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
rt ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.Cr. MP (M) No. 62 of 2026
Kamal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cr. MP (M) No. 63 of 2026
Amaan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.Cr. MP (M) No. 64 of 2026
Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.Cr. MP (M) No. 65 of 2026
Abhishek Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
2.2026:HHC:5022
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr.Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
.
Additional Advocate Generals and
Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish
Banstu, Deputy Advocates
Generals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since, all the above bail petitions arise from same
of
FIR i.e. FIR No.157 of 2025 dated 28.06.2025 registered at P.S.
Baddi, District Solan, H.P Under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190 ,
rt
351(2), 118 (1) and 118 (2) of the BNS 2023, same are being
disposed of vide common order.
2. Sequel to order dated 07.01.2026, passed by this
Court in all the bail petitions, whereby the bail petitioners were
ordered to be enlarged on interim bail subject to their joining
investigation, respondent/State has filed a common status report in
all the cases, perusal whereof, reveals that FIR detailed
hereinabove, came to be lodged at the behest of complainant
namely Keshav, who alleged that on 26.06.2025 at 6:00 pm,
while he was going to his house in the car of his friend namely
Adarsh, person namely Charanjeet Chaudhary along with his
friends met him on the way. He alleged that some altercation took
place inter se him and Charanjeet and thereafter petitioner
Charanjeet Chaudhary along with others gave merciless beatings
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
3.2026:HHC:5022
to him as well as his friend Adarsh, as a result thereof, they
suffered multiple injuries.
.
3. Mr. Yug Singhal, learned Counsel representing
petitioner states that pursuant to order dated 07.01.2026 all the
bail petitioners have joined investigation and nothing remains to
be recovered from them and as such interim bail dated 07.01.2026
of
deserves to be made absolute. He further states that otherwise
also parties resolved to settle their matter amicably inter se them
rt
by way of compromise and with a view to get the FIR in question
quashed and set aside, bail petitioners along with complainant
have already filed Cr.MMO. No. 884 of 2025 under Section 528 of
BNSS in this Court for quashing of FIR.
4. While fairly acknowledging factum of joining
investigation by petitioners in terms of order dated 07.01.2026, Mr.
Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that
though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners
but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been
committed by them, interim bail granted to them in terms of order
dated 07.01.2026 cannot be made absolute. However, he fairly
admitted that in terms of compromise arrived inter se parties
coupled with the fact that petitioner along with complainant named
above, have already filed a petition for quashing FIR on the basis
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
4.2026:HHC:5022
of compromise in this Court, chances of conviction of the
petitioners are very remote and bleak.
.
5. Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of cases
have held that one is deem to be innocent till the time his/her guilt
is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if
any, of the petitioners is yet to be established on record by the
of
investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence
and as such, their freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite
rt
period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional
Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioners being
enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice or may again indulge in
such activities again, can be best met by putting bail petitioners to
stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. 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
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
5.2026:HHC:5022
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.
of
8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017)
5 SCC 218, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail
rt
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.
9. 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.
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
6.2026:HHC:5022
10. Consequently, in view of the above, orders dated
07.01.2026 passed by this Court in all these petitions are made
.
absolute subject to petitioners’ furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.1.00 Lakh each with two local sureties in the like amount each,
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following
conditions:
of
(a) They shall make themselves 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
rt
by filing appropriate application;
(b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor
hamper the investigation of the case in any manner
whatsoever;
(c) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or
the Police Officer; and
(d) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
11. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or
violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating
agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
12. 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 these petitions alone. The
petitions stand accordingly disposed of.
13. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS
7.2026:HHC:5022
petitioners and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity
of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be
.
ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
February 28, 2026.
(meera)
of
rt
::: Downloaded on – 28/02/2026 20:29:39 :::CIS