Kamal Singh Alias Tiger Vs State of Hp

2025:HHC:36825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Cr.M.P.(M) No.2326 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.11.2025

Kamal Singh alias Tiger …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral).

¶5

Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in case FIR No.239 of 2021, dated 26.08.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC & ST Act).

¶6

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

2

¶8

2025:HHC:36825

¶9

Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.

¶10

Prosecution case is that on 25.8.2021 at about 7:30 P.M. an information was received in Police Station, Kullu that at near Saeubag at Chhururu, some mishap had occurred. This information was transmitted by Police Station staff to QRT team and to SI Kushal Kumar, the then SHO, who was on patrolling. SI Kushal Kumar, out of his Patrolling Party, deputed ASI Vij Ram and Constable Om Parkash to reach Regional Hospital, Kullu to handle the situation on arrival of injured and alongwith remaining team of Patrolling Party he rushed to spot. On reaching near Café Water Edge (hereinafter referred as Café) at Chhururu, he met Constables of QRT Team of Kullu Police who were controlling the traffic on the spot, managing preservation of the spot and were waiting for Ambulance to shift injured persons from spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi and other onlookers were also present on the spot. Paras Ram was lying in katcha portion of road on side of road. He was bleeding badly and at some distance from him, in the middle of the road, his broken vehicle was there. On left front seat thereof injured Yuma Devi was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victim to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. Thereafter on reaching the

¶11

3

¶12

2025:HHC:36825

¶13

Hospital, treatment of injured was started in emergency. During treatment, statement of Yuma Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Vij Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Sections 307, 320, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶14

Keeping in view serious condition of victims during night, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, Mandi. As provisions of SC&ST Act were attracted, therefore, in compliance of communication dated 26.8.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, investigation was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu.

¶15

As per medical record, following major injuries were found on the person of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram.

¶16

(a) Yuma Devi.

¶17

“1. Open wound left leg-blunt injury .

¶18

2. Lacerated wound left leg-blunt injury.

¶19

3. Swelling both arms-blunt injury.

¶20

4. Swelling distal phalange both arms-blunt injury.

¶21

5. Open wound left thumb blunt injury.

¶22

6. Fracture both bone forearm-grievous nature.

¶23

7. Fracture left leg-grievous nature.”

¶24

(b) Paras Ram:

¶25

“(1) Lacerated Wound (3x2 CM) over frontal region.

¶26

(2) Bruise (variable size) over right and left shoulder 10x3, 2x1 cm, 5x3 cm.

¶27

4

¶28

2025:HHC:36825

¶29

(3) Bruise (10x3 cm) over left shoulder.

¶30

(4) Open wound over right forearm (3x1 cm, 3x1 cm, 4x2 cm).

¶31

(5) Open wound over left forearm.

¶32

(6) Bruise (6x4 cm) over left thigh 9 cm from ASIS.

¶33

(7) Bruise (5x3 cm over Right thigh 10 cm from ASIS.

¶34

(8) Open wound (3x1, 4x2, 3x1.5 cm, 4x1) over left leg.

¶35

(9) Open wound (4x1) cm over right leg.

¶36

(10) Lacerated wound (6x3 cm) over left arm.

¶37

(11) Bruise (5x3 cm) over left knee.

¶38

(12) Bruise (variable size).

¶39

(13) fracture hank both bone forearm & leg both side.”

¶40

During investigation, statement of Yuma Devi was also recorded on 02.09.2021 in Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, wherein she had given detailed statement about dispute and incident with explanation that at the time of recording of previous statement immediately after the attack when she was in Kullu Hospital, she was grievously injured and was under shock and influence of various kinds of drugs/injections administered to her by the doctors, and was in semi-conscious state, and in between her statement was being recorded by the Police and in such state of mind and body she could not narrate the facts of incident properly and completely.

¶41

Statement of victim has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu on 9.11.2021. As per prosecution case, as also narrated in the statement of victim Yuma Devi depute had arisen between complainant party and assailants party with respect to sale and

¶42

5

¶43

2025:HHC:36825

¶44

purchase of land and a threat was extended by Khimi Ram alias Kewlu to the injured party, whereupon on 23.8.2021 injured party went to Police Station, Kullu, but their FIR was not registered and they were called on next morning and on 24.8.2021, when they went to Police Station, Kullu, Khimi Ram alias Kewlu was also found summoned there, but he did not come to I.O., but kept on sitting in his vehicle behind the Police Station and when by noon Yuma Devi felt hungry, she alongwith her husband went outside the Police Station to have some eatables. When they reached near District Court Kullu, Khimi Ram came behind them in his vehicle and stopped his Car near the couple and took out a danda from Dickey of his Car, whereas his driver Vijay took out a rod and both of them tried to beat her husband and at that time Sidhu was also accompanying the assailants. Sidhu held her husband, whereas Khimi Ram went on beating him. The moment Vijay tried to give blow to her husband, Yuma Devi rushed and snatched the rod from him and asked to leave her husband, with warning that otherwise she will also hit. By that time, two Policemen also came, one of them caught her husband alongwith Sidhu and Khimi Ram kept on beating her husband. Yuma Devi hit the vehicle of Khimi Ram with rod and cried loudly asking to leave her husband with threat that otherwise she would damage the vehicle. In the meanwhile, Vijay came and snatched the rod from her and slapped her and

¶45

6

¶46

2025:HHC:36825

¶47

thereafter Khimi Ram, Policemen and Vijay beat her husband. With fist blow of Khimi Ram, her front tooth was dislocated. Thereafter, Police came and scuffle was ended and they went home.

¶48

On 25.08.2021, they were again called in the Police Station at 10:00 A.M., wherefrom they were sent for medical examination and thereafter, they returned back to Police Station, where in front of Additional S.P., Khimi Ram and injured party explained their respective versions. Despite advice of Additional S.P., Khimi Ram did not agree to resolve the dispute and they left the Police Station. Thereafter husband of Yuma Devi received a telephonic call from Raj Kumar, who was with Chander Kiran alias Gaurav, Sidhu, one Advocate and brother-in-law of Khimi Ram for the whole day. Raj Kumar had suggested to resolve the dispute by sitting together, but husband of victim had replied that Khimi Ram did not pay heed to the advice of Additional S.P., therefore, there is least possibility of compromise and had stated that tomorrow they shall meet in Police Station. At 6:00 P.M., Gaurav again called them telephonically and said that incident, which had taken place was not a good thing and asked to resolve the matter by sitting together. By that time, they reached near Water Edge Café, but movement of their vehicle was blocked by parking a Scorpio in the middle of the road and Khimi Ram alias

¶49

7

¶50

2025:HHC:36825

¶51

Kewlu, Sidhu, Vijay, brother-in-law of Khimi (Akhil) and other persons came from front side and some persons came from back side and hit their vehicle with stones and when they stopped the vehicle, assailants attacked the couple and husband of complainant was taken to back side of the vehicle and was beaten badly by breaking his foot and causing other injuries and she was also beaten on the seat of vehicle. Assailants tried to pull her out, but she held the liver of gear with her leg, as such they could not pull her out. They torn her clothes and molested her, apart from breaking her arms and leg.

¶52

As per prosecution case, after having CCTV Footage of Café, it has been found that assailants were present in café since about quarter to 4:00 P.M. on 25.8.2021 and they were waiting for victims and the moment victims reached there, they stopped their vehicle and attacked them. In CCTV Footage one Ritik was also found present, who has been interrogated intensively and in his statement he has also stated that Khimi Ram, Vijay, Sidhu and Akhil and some other persons unknown to him were present in Café and were discussing about some matter at a side and they were trying to hide something from him. He has also witnessed the incident and had stated that Room Singh was also involved in the attack, with deposition that Room Singh alongwith other accused, namely, Chaman Singh, Akhil, Khimi Ram, Sandhu etc.

¶53

8

¶54

2025:HHC:36825

¶55

was hitting the car with Dandas and breaking the glasses/windscreens.

¶56

During investigation, spot eye-witness-Rajan Sharma has also been interrogated by the police and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that Vijay driver of Khimi Ram @ Kewlu was known to him and on his request, on 25.08.2021, i.e. the date of incident, he (Rajan) had handed over his Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.HP-34A-7267 to Vijay, and at about 3-4 pm on inquiring, Vijay had asked him to wait for some time, whereupon he (Rajan) went to Café Water Edge by taking lift in a vehicle, as Chandan (owner of the Café) was well acquainted with him and he used to visit café oftenly. He (Rajan) had further submitted that in the Café, Khimi Ram @ Kewlu, Sidhu and his other numerous companions were eating and drinking. After some time, Vijay also came there and informed that he had parked his vehicle outside the Café, but on asking him for the key of the vehicle, he replied that he would handover the key later. Rajan further stated that he was acquainted with Khimi Ram and others, and he talked with them. After some time, Shyama (Chaman Singh), Tyson (Khem Raj) and Tiger (Kamal Singh-present petitioner) also came there and all of them were eating and drinking together, and in-between they were also discussing something secretly by going on the side

¶57

9

¶58

2025:HHC:36825

¶59

corner, and he (Rajan) felt that they were hiding something from him. At about 7:00 pm, Khimi Ram suddenly announced “ he has come – he has come, park the vehicles” and all of them went outside the Café, some of them were having stones and sticks in their hands when they went outside and he (Rajan) noticed that his Scorpio was being parked by Vijay on the middle of the road, before he could ask Vijay about it, a white Swift Dezire car came from Kullu side, which was slowed down because of vehicles parked on the road, and Sidhu, Khimi Ram and others persons pelted stones on the windowpane and the front glass of the car. Sidhu had hit the left side windowpane with a bottle of beer and other persons also attacked with stones and sticks upon car in which a male and female were sitting, whereupon occupants of the car started crying and he (Rajan) noticed that lady was Yuma Devi, who was well known to his family. He (Rajan), though was afraid, but he snatched the stick from Tyson and asked him why they were beating the occupants of the car so much and, thereafter, he immediately went inside the café and at that time, stick was in his hand and he informed the owner of the Café (Chandan) that Negi Uncle and his wife are being beaten outside and requested to call the police or someone else. He (Rajan) further stated that then he came out and saw that Kewlu, Sidhu, Tyson, Tiger (present petitioner) and Shyama were beating Parsram Negi (husband of Yuma Devi) on the back side of the

¶60

10

¶61

2025:HHC:36825

¶62

vehicle by laying him on the road and Yuma Devi was crying from inside the car and Sidhu and Tiger (present petitioner) were holding sticks in their hands. Thereafter, he (Rajan) immediately went to his vehicle and saw that Vijay Kumar was already sitting on the driver’s seat and the moment he (Rajan) boarded the vehicle, Vijay Kumar started the vehicle, and a boy was already sitting therein. According to Rajan, on inquiry, Vijay disclosed that he had parked the vehicle on road on the direction of Kewlu bhai.

¶63

During investigation, in the CCTV footage, Kamal Singh (Tiger-present petitioner) was also identified by Narayan Singh, Up Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Dhanogi, i.e. Gram Panchayat of Kamal Singh-petitioner.

¶64

It is case of prosecution that Kamal Singh (Tiger), Chaman Singh (Shyama), Inder Dev and Room Singh had come to the Café in a taxi. During investigation, Taxi driver of HP-01K6806, Hemraj alias Ankur, was also interrogated and examined by the Investigating Officer. He (Hemraj) has stated that Kamal Singh (Tiger), Chaman Singh (Shayama) and other two persons had gone to Café Water Edge on the date of incident in his taxi. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that statement of Hem Raj was corroborated by CCTV footage, wherein Kamal Singh (Tiger), Inder Dev, Room Singh and

¶65

11

¶66

2025:HHC:36825

¶67

Chaman Singh (Shayama) have been noticed entering in the Café Water Edge after alighting from the taxi.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are contradictions and improvements in the statements of complainant/victim recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that first version was given by the complainant in Hospital at Kullu, wherein she has not named petitioner as an assailant, rather she has named Chander Kiran @ Gaurav and Raj Kumar as assailants, but during investigation her said version has been found incorrect and Chander Kiran @ Gaurav and Raj Kumar have been discharged by the Investigating Agency under Section 169 Cr.P.C., as also for that they were not present on the spot, but somewhere else. It has been further submitted that in MLC of injured Yuma Devi, it has been recorded that at the time of medical examination she was conscious, cooperative and oriented to time, place and person and, therefore, her first version was the true version, wherein petitioner has not named him and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with commission of offence and he has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion.

¶69

It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even Yuma Devi has not named petitioner either in her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or Section 164

¶70

12

¶71

2025:HHC:36825

¶72

Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that in his statement though Rajan has named Tiger (Kamal Singh) as assailant but other spot witness, Ravinder, who is son of victims, has not named Tiger @ Kamal Singh as an assailant, therefore, statement of Rajan is unreliable because his vehicle has been used for commission of offense. Further that there are other spot witnesses cited by prosecution, but none of them has taken name of the petitioner and thus, only on the basis of statement of Rajan, petitioner cannot be treated like other co-accused.

¶73

It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that nothing incriminatory has been found in the Forensic Science Laboratory report against petitioner-Kamal Singh either in DNA Profiling or in examination of his telephone or analysis report of mobile phone conversation amongst the accused persons on 24 and 25 August, 2021, as no evidence related to the incident was found in the mobile phone of the petitioner and no phone call was found having conversation between petitioner and other accused.

¶74

It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that there was no conversation between Kamal Singh and other accused persons, therefore, there was no prior meeting of mind for involving the petitioner in the commission of offence as alleged. It has been further submitted that no identification

¶75

13

¶76

2025:HHC:36825

¶77

parade has been conducted for identification of petitioner by the complainant, who has not stated name of the petitioner in any of her statement recorded by the police.

¶78

It has been stated on behalf of petitioner that there was enmity between both the parties and out of enmity, Kamal Singh @ Tiger, being known to main accused Khimi Ram, has been implicated falsely in order to harass and to take revenge, whereas there is no eye witness to substantiate the alleged presence of petitioner on the spot.

¶79

Referring judgments of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2013 (Constable 907 Surendra Singh &

¶80

Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand) decided on 28.01.2025, it has been contended that for absence of ingredients of Section 34 of IPC, it is apparent that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and thus, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶81

The judgment in Constable 907 Surendra Singh ( supra ) has been passed after evaluation and assessment of the evidence on record after completion of trial. In present case, the trial is yet to be completed, and the plea of the petitioner shall be considered at the time of conclusion of the trial. As apparent from the material placed before the Trial Court with the challan, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the petitioner on record.

¶82

14

¶83

2025:HHC:36825

¶84

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2021 and since then, he is behind the bars and as on date only 5 witnesses have been examined and there is inordinate delay in the trial, which is going at a snail’s pace, therefore also, petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶85

With respect to delay in trial, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that charges in present matter were framed against the accused on 13.07.2022, whereafter, six witnesses were called for 13.09.2022 and on that day, statements of four witnesses were recorded and one witness Amarjeet was given up. Whereas, another witness Uday Ram was not present despite service. Thereafter, case was adjourned for 22.10.2022 for recording statements of five prosecution witnesses, but before that, on 13.10.2022 Court file of the case was sent to the High Court as per order passed in Criminal Revision No.490 of 2022, titled as Lekh Raj vs. State of H.P. and, therefore, no witness could be examined on 22.10.2022.

¶86

Thereafter, for want of record, case was adjourned on 08.12.2022, 12.01.2023, 14.03.2023 and 20.04.2023. Vide order dated 30.05.2023 further proceedings in the case were stayed by the High Court and, thereafter, trial was fixed on 05.07.2023, 09.08.2023, 27.09.2023 and 16.11.2023 for further orders. The case file was received back in the Trial Court on

¶87

15

¶88

2025:HHC:36825

¶89

15.12.2023 whereafter, on 04.01.2024, two witnesses, including complainant Yuma Devi were summoned for 04.03.2024, whereas, other witnesses were summoned for 05.03.2024 and 06.03.2024.

¶90

On 04.03.2024 Yuma Devi was found admitted in Medical College, Ner Chowk, for treatment and, thus, was not available. At that time, learned counsel for the accused had raised objection that first of all, statement of Yuma Devi be recorded and only thereafter, statements of other witnesses to be recorded. Prayer was accepted by the Sessions Judge and witnesses summoned on 05.03.2024 and 06.03.2024 were discharged and next date for recording statement of Yuma Devi was fixed on 20.04.2024.

¶91

On 20.04.2024 an Advocate Mr.R.L. Sondhi, appeared on behalf of Yuma Devi and produced prescription slip issued by the Medical Officer, R.H. Kullu, wherein Doctor had prescribed five days medical rest. Therefore, statement of Yuma Devi could not be recorded. On 20.04.2024 matter was adjourned for 22.06.2024 for recording her statement.

¶92

On 22.06.2024 Presiding Officer was not avialable on account of transfer and, therefore, matter was adjourned for 04.07.2024.

¶93

16

¶94

2025:HHC:36825

¶95

On 04.07.2024 Yuma Devi was summoned for 26.10.2024. On 26.10.2024 for transfer of Presiding Officer, proceedings in the Trial Court could not be progressed and trial was adjourned for proper order on 08.11.2024.

¶96

Now, complainant has been examined and case has been fixed for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses on 22.11.2025.

¶97

Referring aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution and summons issued to the witnesses by the Court were duly served upon the witnesses by the police well in time, but unfortunately for the reasons stated supra, statement of the few witnesses only could be recorded, however, he submits that now case has been fixed for recording statements of witnesses on 22.11.2025, and thereafter, statements of other witnesses will be recorded.

¶98

It has further been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that statement of other witnesses, apart from complainant Yuma Devi, could have been recorded on earlier dates, who were duly summoned, but due to request made on behalf of the accused persons through their counsel, statements of other witnesses were also not recorded as complainant was not

¶99

17

¶100

2025:HHC:36825

¶101

available on account of her ailment and, therefore, it has been submitted that it is the petitioner and other accused, who are responsible for delay in recording the evidence.

¶102

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Criminal Revision No.490 of 2022 was filed by one Lekh Raj, who is not an accused in present case, and in his Revision, order dated 16.07.2022 passed by Special Judge, Kullu, was stayed, but in the trial there is no order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge and, therefore, there was no stay in proceeding further in the trial. He has further submitted that as Lekh Raj is not related to the present matter, therefore, there is no question of summoning the record of the present matter by the High Court in a Revision Petition preferred by Lekh Raj.

¶103

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.4758 of 2024 , titled as Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. The State of Maharashtra, has contended that when there is delay in trial, then rejection of bail with direction to complete the trial in a time bound schedule is unwarranted as an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress as such direction would be giving a false hope instead of grant of bail for which he is entitled and,

¶104

18

¶105

2025:HHC:36825

¶106

therefore, in case of delay in trial, option of direction to expedite the trial is not the solution.

¶107

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Lekh Raj was one of the suspects, who was yet to be interrogated and apprehended, but he was absconding and, therefore, proceedings to declare him proclaimed offender, by invoking provisions under Section 83 and 84 Cr.P.C., were initiated wherein order dated 16.07.2022 was passed in present case FIR No.239 of 2021, dated 26.08.2021 and it is also matter of record that record of the Trial Court was summoned by the High Court in the petition filed by Lekh Raj and, therefore, delay on this count cannot be attributed to the prosecution as immediately after receiving the file, Trial Court as well as prosecution intended to record the statement of witnesses, but for objection of the counsel of the accused persons, recording of statement of witnesses was deferred till recording of statement of Yuma Devi. Therefore, it has been submitted that petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground of delay, if any in the trial.

¶108

It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that presence of petitioner in the Cafe has been duly recorded in CCTV and he has been duly identified by the witnesses in the CCTV Camera and had also noticed by the spot witness Rajan on the spot involved in commission of offence.

¶109

19

¶110

2025:HHC:36825

¶111

Further that presence of the petitioner in the Cafe along with other co-accused is duly corroborated by Taxi Driver also. Therefore, for absence of evidence of conversation with coaccused cannot be made basis to conclude that there was no meeting of mind of petitioner with others, as his involvement for other material on record is very much evident. It has further been stated that, in any case, merit of the claim of the petitioner about his plea, is to be evaluated/assessed by the Trial Court after recording of the evidence and on the basis of record, it cannot be said that ex-facie petitioner was not involved at all in the commission of offence because his proximity with other accused, continuous involvement and role on spot with other accused persons during relevant period and presence on the spot is sufficient to establish prima facie that he was involved in commission of offence.

¶112

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that prior meeting of mind is writ large from the CCTV footage as well as statement of spot witness-Rajan, which clearly establishes that petitioner-Kamal Singh was eating, drinking and talking with all the co-accused before the incident and was actively participating in the commission of offence and Narayan Singh, Up Pardhan of Gram Panchayat of the petitioner has duly identified him in CCTV footage at the time of occurrence and his involvement along with other accused, including main accused-

¶113

20

¶114

2025:HHC:36825

¶115

Khimi Ram. Therefore, on this ground, it has been submitted that he is not entitled for bail, only on the ground that there is no call detail with respect to conversation of petitioner-Kamal Singh with other co-accused person on the date of incident.

¶116

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that after passing of interim order by the High Court, staying the proceeding in the trial, none of the accused person, including the petitioner, took any step to get the stay vacated so as to conclude the trial within a reasonable period and, therefore, the petitioner and other accused persons are equally responsible for delay in trial, as according to learned Additional Advocate General, the accused persons, including the petitioner, were interested in delaying the trial, may be for taking benefit of delay in recording the evidence as by the afflux of time, memory of witnesses may fade away.

¶117

Petitioner is an accused in a heinous crime under Section 302 IPC, wherein cold blooded murder has been committed after planning it. It is not a case where a person had expired in a scuffle or on account of an incident taken place for sudden provocation. In this case, it appears that victims were traced, trapped and beaten badly and, injuries are sufficient to draw conclusion that intention of assailants was clear.

¶118

21

¶119

2025:HHC:36825

¶120

Petitioner had filed an application for enlarging on bail before Special Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh (Trial Court), which has been dismissed on 27.07.2025.

¶121

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that credibility of statement of Yuma Devi is also doubtful, as she, in her statement recorded by the police, had alleged that Khimi Ram (Kewlu), Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Gaurav had signalled to stop the vehicle and attacked the couple, whereas in the investigation it has been concluded by the Investigating Officer that Raj Kumar and Gaurav were not present on the spot.

¶122

It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that conclusion of Investigating Officer that Raj Kumar and Gaurav were not found on the spot and impact thereof, is yet to be considered and assessed by the Trial Court. In any case, from the said finding of the Investigating Officer, petitioner is not going to be benefitted in any manner, as Investigating Officer has arrived at conclusion, on the basis of material available that petitioner was present on the spot and has actively participated in the commission of the offence.

¶123

As per status report, from the CCTV footage, it is evident that on 25.08.2021, petitioner-Kamal Singh @ Tiger along with Chaman @ Shayama, Inder Dev and Room Singh arrived at

¶124

22

¶125

2025:HHC:36825

¶126

Café Water Edge at about 03:50 pm and thereafter, they ate and drank in the lawn of the café along with other accused persons and at about 06:40 pm, on the signal made by Khimi Ram, petitioner-Kamal Singh @ Tiger along with other accused persons went out of the gate and committed the offence. The time of the CCTV footage is 22 minutes 32 seconds behind the Indian Standard Time. In CCTV footage, petitioner has been identified by independent witnesses and even, spot witnesses have also named him as an assailant. Presence of petitioner-Kamal Singh has also been fortified by the tower location of his mobile phone in the area of commission of offense.

¶127

Taking into consideration submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also material on record including statements of victim, MLCs of Victim, nature of injuries received by victims, possibility of mental state of Yuma Devi at the time of recording her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and also statement of Ritik and conclusion of investigation but without commenting upon merits of the case, however, taking into consideration parameters and factors required to be taken into consideration at the time of considering bail application, I find that it is not a case where no prima facie case at all is made out against the

¶128

23

¶129

2025:HHC:36825

¶130

petitioner. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶131

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

¶132

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶133

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶134

3^rd November, 2025

¶135

(Pardeep)

Kamal Singh Alias Tiger v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh Alias Tiger v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commandant 70 Rcc ( Greef) Vs Kiran Bala Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Raj Kumari and Ors.

Barfi Devi Vs Kaushalya Devi

Secretary(Pw) Vs Indira Devi

Kartaroo Devi Vs Anil Sharma

Shankar Dass Vs Jitender Gupta