Taj Mohammad Vs State of Hp

1

2025:HHC:43593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP (M) Nos. : 2855 t	o 2858 of 2025
Decided on	: 15.12.2025
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2855 of 2025 Taj Mohammad	…Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2856 of 2025 Shakeel Mohammad	…Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2857 of 2025 Akhtar Ali	…Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2858 of 2025 Firoj Khan	…Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh _________________________________________ Coram	…Respondent __________________

¶5

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

¶6

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶7

	2	2	025:HHC	:43593
For the applicant(s)	: Mr. Rajesh	Verma, A	dvoca	te.
For the respondent	: Mr. H.S.	Rawat	and	Mr.
	Mohinder	Zharaick,	Addi	tional
	Advocates	General,	with	Mr.
	Rohit	Sharma,	D	eputy
	Advocate	General, a	ssiste	d by
	ASI Jiten	der Shar	ma,	I.O.,
	Police	Station	Nala	garh,
	District So	lan, H.P.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by the common order, as, all the four bail applications have been filed, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest in case, arising out of FIR No. 343/2025, dated 02.11.2025 , registered with Police Station Nalagarh , District Solan, H.P., under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’).

¶10

According to the applicants, they are apprehending their arrest, however, they are innocent persons, having no concern whatsoever, with the crime in

¶11

3 2025:HHC:43593

¶12

question and have falsely been implicated, in the present case.

¶13

According to the applicants, they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court, in the event of the bail being granted.

¶14

The applicants have tried their luck by moving similar bail applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, the bail applications were dismissed, vide order dated 04.12.2025.

¶15

Vide order dated 05.12.2025, State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report has been filed.

¶16

As per the status report, which has been filed today, on 02.11.2025, when ASI Jitender Sharma, I.O. Police Station Nalagarh, along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, then, from helpline No. 112, he had received the information that at a place Nangal, a quarrel had taken place, and consequently, two persons were taken to hospital, in injured condition. Upon this, ASI Jitender Sharma, reached CHC Nalagarh, in order to verify

¶17

4 2025:HHC:43593

¶18

the said fact, where injured Mohammad Arif and Mohammad Tahir, were found admitted in injured condition. Their medico legal examination was got conducted from the hospital. Regarding the injuries found on the person of injured-Mohammad Arif, X-ray and MRI were advised, whereas regarding injured Mohammad Tahir, the Doctor had advised NCCT Head.

¶19

6.1 On the spot, complainant Sultan Mohammad, made a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is permanent resident of Village Banyala, Post Office Jogoon, Tehsil Panjehra, District Solan, H.P.

¶20

6.2 According to him, on that day, he had gone to Nangal to attend a marriage at River View Hotel. His nephew Arif Mohammad (injured) disclosed him that he was sitting in his vehicle, then, from vehicle No. HP03B0006, four persons came out, whom he named as Kaku Khan, Aktar Ali, Shakeel Mohammad and Firoj Khan, resident of Village Navagrawn Post Office Majara, Tehsil Panjehra, came out and all the four persons attacked him with sharp edged weapon. Due to this act, Arif Mohammad and Tahir sustained injuries. The said assailants tried to

¶21

5 2025:HHC:43593

¶22

kill them. He took the injured to the hospital and informed the relatives, as well as, the father of Arif.

¶23

6.3 According to him, the attack was to kill them and the assailants may again attack them. As such, he prayed that the action be taken against the assailants.

¶24

6.4 After the registration of the FIR, spot was visited, spot map was prepared. Photographs were clicked. Statements of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, were recorded. The report from Regional Hospital Solan, were obtained. On the basis of these reports, CHC Nalagarh has given the final opinion that the injuries were grievous in nature, upon which, Section 118(2) of BNS was added, in this case.

¶25

6.5 Accused persons had tried their luck by moving similar applications before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, their applications were dismissed on 04.12.2025.

¶26

6.6 After perusing the said status report, on 05.12.2025, interim protection was granted to the applicants and matter has been adjourned for today.

¶27

6 2025:HHC:43593

¶28

6.7 Today, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that the applicants have joined the investigation and the vehicle involved in the incident, was also taken into possession and was released, as per the order of learned ACJM Nalagarh. The physical evidence, so collected, by the police, has been sent to SFSL Junga.

¶29

6.8 Lastly, it has been pleaded that nothing is to be recovered nor inquired from the applicants.

¶30

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

¶31

Heard.

¶32

Considering the stand of the police, according

¶33

to which, nothing is to be recovered from the applicants, nor anything is to be inquired from them, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the applications would be nothing, but pre-trial punishment and punishment can only be inflicted after the full fledge trial. As such, it can be held that the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law.

¶34

7 2025:HHC:43593

¶35

Even otherwise, the role, allegedly attributed to the applicants, will be proved, during the trial.

¶36

Moreover, the applicants are the permanent residents of District Solan and as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, they may not be available for the trial.

¶37

Consequently, interim order, dated 05.12.2025, in all the cases, is made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 343/2025, dated 02.11.2025 , registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS , with Police Station Nalagarh , District Solan, H.P., subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶38

This order, however, shall be subject to the

¶39

following conditions:-

¶40

a) The applicants shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so 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 the appropriate application;

¶41

8

¶42

2025:HHC:43593

¶43

b) That the applicants shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

¶44

c) That the applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and

¶45

d) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

¶46

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 applications.

¶47

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

¶48

Copy of this order be placed in the connected case files i.e. CrMPs(M) No. 2856 to 2858 of 2025.

¶49

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶50

15^th December, 2025

¶51

(Pramod Kumar)

Taj Mohammad v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad 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

Vishwa Mohan Dev Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Akash Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Rewat Ram Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jagar Nath and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Mehar Chand Vs Led Ram (since deceased) through LRs

Shakeel Mohammad Vs State of Hp