Hanuman Nath Vs State of Hp

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.2771 of 2025 Date of Decision:-01.12.2025 Hanuman Nath …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the applicant : Mr. Pranshul Sharma and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by HC. Harsh Thakur, No.48, P.S. Shalaghat, District Shimla, H.P.

¶6

Virender Singh, Judge

¶7

By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicantHanuman Nath has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶9

¶10

Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P.

¶11

The relief of the bail has been sought on the ground that the applicant has been arrested, in a false case and presently, he is in judicial custody.

¶12

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has no connection, whatsoever, with the crime in question. He has termed the case of the prosecution, as highly doubtful and according to him, nothing is to be recovered from him.

¶13

It is the further case of the applicant that the investigation, in the case is completed. All these facts have been pleaded to show that no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the applicant, in judicial custody.

¶14

In addition to this, he has also stated that the present case is nothing, but, counter blast to the case FIR No.46 of 2025, dated 09.06.2025, registered under Sections 332-C, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS.

¶15

On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Pranshul Sharma and Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on

¶16

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶17

behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

¶18

The applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 11.07.2025.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused of the applicant has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide orders dated 09.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1773 & 2499 of 2025, hence, the applicant is entitled to the relief of bail, on the ground of parity also.

¶20

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

¶21

When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 09.06.2025, an information regarding the scuffle/quarrel had been received in the Police Station, upon which, the then, Incharge Moti Singh, along with other police officials, in

¶22

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶23

order to verify the facts reached at Arki Hospital, where, Vijay Kumar and Mahender Kumar, were found to be admitted for treatment.

¶24

10.1. During verification, one Chandni, moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of village Kanderli, Post office Bhararighat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., whereas, Hanuman Nath (applicant) is their neighbourer and their houses are adjoining to each other.

¶25

10.2. According to the complainant, they had fenced their land. On 09.06.2025, Hanuman Nath (applicant) along with his wife, Neelam and sons Triloki, Raghu, Sibu, who were having sticks, in their hands, came and started removing the fence, upon which, complainant, along with her husband, Vijay had gone to prevent them, from doing so, they had started quarreling with them.

¶26

10.3. Her brother-in-law (Devar) namely Mahender Kumar was also beaten by them, due to which, he has sustained injury. Vijay had gone to save him, then, he was also beaten by them and threatenings were given to kill him. At that time, Hanuman Nath (applicant) said to

¶27

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶28

Triloki to bring gun, upon which, his wife and sons also instigated him to bring gun and on their instigation, Trilok Nath brought gun and fired at Vijay with the intention to kill. He has made two fires, the gun shot hit the face of Vijay, due to which, he fell down. The complainant took him up to the road, from where, he was brought to Arki Hospital.

¶29

10.4. On the basis of the above facts, he has prayed that action be taken against them, upon which, the police registered the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of BNS, and further investigation was entrusted to SI Ankush Sharma. Neelam Devi had also lodged the FIR No.46 of 2025, dated 09.06.2025, registered under Sections 332(C), 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 10.5. On 09.06.2025, MLCs of Vijay Kumar and Mahender Kumar were obtained. The Medical Officer had referred Vijay Kumar for further treatment to IGMC Shimla and Mahender Kumar was directed to get his X- Ray done. Vijay Kumar, along with his wife, Chandni was sent to IGMC Shimla. On 10.06.2025, at the instance of

¶30

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶31

Mahender Kumar, spot was visited and spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of BNSS.

¶32

10.6. On 09.06.2025, in FIR No.46 of 2025, applicant-Hanuman Nath, Jaiswal, Neelam Jaiswal, Raghu Nath and Shivnath were medico-legally examined at Arki Hospital, whereas, Shivnath was referred to IGMC, Shimla, for further treatment.

¶33

10.7. In FIR No.46 of 2025, the opinion of Doctor was obtained from MLCs and the doctor has declared the injuries on the person of all the accused persons, as simple. At the instance of Triloki Nath, spot was visited and spot map was prepared.

¶34

10.8. On 10.06.2025, X-Ray of Mahender Kumar was

¶35

got conducted in Arki Hospital and report was obtained. The injuries found on the persons, were declared to be simple. In FIR No.46 of 2025, statements of accused persons, applicant-Hanuman Nath, Neelam Jaiswal, Raghunath, Trilokinath, and Shivnath were recorded. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested.

¶36

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶37

10.9. On 11.06.2025, accused persons were produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, from where, they were remanded to police custody, till 13.06.2025. Accused Hanuman Nath was taken to village Kandreli, where, weapon of offence was searched, but, the same was not found. Despite repeated inquires, accused persons were not disclosing, anything about the weapon used by them. 10.10. On 24.06.2025, injured-Vijay Kumar, along with complainant-Chandni, appeared before the police and submitted the Pen drive, which was allegedly containing the video of the scuffle. The said video was recorded by the complainant- Chandni, with her mobile phone.

¶38

10.11. As per the police, in one video, Raghunath was seen removing the fence, which was bone of the contention between the parties and in another video, Neelam Devi was seen while concealing weapon(gun) in her shirt. The Medical Officer of IGMC, Shimla, also preserved four pellets, which were taken into possession. The pellets were sent to SFSL, Junga.

¶39

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶40

10.12. Except the present case, no other case has been found to be registered against Shivnath.

¶41

10.13. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and the charge sheet has been filed on 05.08.2025, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki. The matter is now listed for Consideration of Charge on 03.12.2025, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P.

¶42

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶43

The investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and from the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, it can be inferred, at this stage, that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. No specific role has been attributed against the applicant, with the crime in question.

¶44

Considering the pleaded facts by the police, it was a free fight, as both the parties have lodged FIR, against each other. It would be proved during the trial, as to which party was the aggressor.

¶45

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶46

Co-accused Neelam Devi and Shiv Nath have

¶47

also been released on bail, by this Court, on 09.09.2025 and 31.10.2025, in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1773 & 2499 of 2025. As such, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled for the relief, as claimed, in the application.

¶48

The applicant is permanent resident of District Solan, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, he is released on bail, he may not be available for the trial. 16. The bail application cannot be rejected, merely as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and the punishment can only be inflicted, after the conclusion of trial.

¶49

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶50

Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in case FIR No.47 of 2025, dated 10.06.2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms

¶51

Act and Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 351(2), 352 of BNS, with Police Station, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing

¶52

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶53

personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P.

¶54

This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:-

¶55

a) The applicant shall 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 the appropriate application;

¶56

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

¶57

c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶58

d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶59

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶60

It is made clear that respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant.

¶61

( 2025:HHC:40940 )

¶62

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶63

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P., is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA,

¶64

Solan, District Solan, H.P. The Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Solan, District Solan, H.P, Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶65

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶66

December 01, 2025 (subhash)

¶67

PRADEEP

¶68

Digitally signed by PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.01 16:19:27 +0530

Hanuman Nath v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Nath v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Shahjahan Ali Vs the State of Hp and Others

Samrit Dhiman Vs State of Hp

Chaman Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Lobhu Ram Vs Bhagat Ram

Khem Raj Vs Ncb