Ram Karan Vs State of Hp

( 2025:HHC:9715 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP (M) No. 747 of 2025 Decided on : 08.04.2025
Ram Karan …Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the applicant : Mr. Sidharth, Rajesh Verma,	Advocate vice Mr. Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Advocate Gene	Zharaick, Additional ral, assisted by ASI
Lakhbir Singh, District Solan.	Police Station Baddi,

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶8

Applicant-Ram Karan, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.207 of 2024, dated 25.08.2024, registered, under Sections 103, 127(2), 125(b),

¶9

61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

(2025:HHC:9715)

¶13

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

¶14

According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.

¶15

The applicant has termed the entire case of the prosecution as false and frivolous, as there is nothing on the record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime.

¶16

It is the further case of the applicant that the prosecution could not collect any evidence to connect him with the alleged offence.

¶17

According to the applicant, he is a young man of 23 years and in case, he is kept in the judicial custody, it would adversely affect his future.

¶18

As per the applicant, investigation, in the present case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant or at his instance.

¶19

The applicant has sought the relief of bail on the ground of parity as his co-accused Ajay Kumar, has already been released, on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 01.04.2025, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.652 of 2025.

¶20

3

¶21

(2025:HHC:9715)

¶22

The applicant has also tried his luck, by moving similar application, bearing Bail Application No.236 of 2024, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, however, the same was dismissed on 09.12.2024.

¶23

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

¶24

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 25.08.2024, HC Amarjeet Singh No.48, I.O., had given the information qua the fact that he noticed two persons; one was lying in injured condition and the other was lying unconscious, at a place known as Sandoli Khawadian and he was taking both the persons to CHC Baddi for treatment.

¶25

10.1. Thereafter, Inspector/SHO, along with other police official, reached at CHC Baddi, where the two persons were taken by the I.O. Injured Lakshmi Kant was declared as fit to make statement, and was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment, whereas, the other person namely Rahul Rai, was declared dead.

¶26

4 (2025:HHC:9715)

¶27

10.2. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 173 BNSS, wherein, he had disclosed that he is resident of village Pawa, Tehsil Bustabad, District Unnav, UP and is residing in a rented accommodation at Panchkula, along with three other persons. Rahul is his friend.

¶28

10.3. On 25.08.2024, all the four persons had boarded a bus and at about 3.30 p.m., they reached Baddi, where the companion of Rahul had gone to purchase Ganja. When Rahul was purchasing Ganja, then a scuffle took place with the person, who had allegedly sold Ganja to them, as Rahul had not paid the amount to him. The other party was from the locality, as such, they came there along with Dandas in their hands and all the four persons were beaten by them.

¶29

10.4. According to the complainant, the assailants were not known to him, however, he could identify them, if produced before him. They all were stated to be of 22-27 years of age.

¶30

10.5. Thereafter, the police registered the FIR, in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶31

5

¶32

(2025:HHC:9715)

¶33

During investigation, the spot was visited by the team of expert of FSL. Dead body of Rahul Rai was sent for postmortem examination to IGMC. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives for performing the last rites.

¶34

As per the further investigation, involvement of accused Chetan Singh, Ram Karan (applicant) and Karan Kumar @ Soni was found. All the three were inquired and were arrested on 26.08.2024 at 7.35 p.m. Since, complainant Lakshmi Kant had got recorded, in his statement, that the assailants were not known to him, as such, test identification parade was proposed to be conducted.

¶35

In the further investigation, accused Nitin Kashyap, Sonu Kumar, Chhotu, Bablu Ahirwar, Shantanu, and Praveen, were arrested on 27.08.2024. Thereafter, on 30.08.2024, accused Ravi Kumar was arrested. On 01.09.2024, accused Ajay Kumar was produced before the I.O., he was also arrested on 1.09.2024. All the accused, who were arrested, in this case, their faces were muffled to conceal their identification.

¶36

6 (2025:HHC:9715)

¶37

Thereafter, on 4.9.2024, accused Rahul @ Happy was arrested. On 7.9.2024, accused Rahul Kumar has identified the place of occurrence. The said fact was documented. On 10.09.2024, accused Sonu Kumar, also made statement under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSA’) and got recovered bamboo stick, which was also taken into possession. Similarly accused Karan Kumar @ Soni, has made the statement under Section 23 of the BSA

¶38

and got recovered the danda which was also taken into possession. CDRs of mobile numbers of the accused persons were obtained.

¶39

On 14.09.2024, accused Prakash Kumar was also arrested. On 16.09.2024, accused Prakash Kumar got recovered a scanner, which was also taken into possession. On 18.09.2024, accused Lukesh @ Jassi was arrested. On 19.09.2024, accused Yograj was arrested. On 6.11.2024, accused Rakib was also arrested.

¶40

It is the further case of the Police that accused Ajay Kumar, along with his companion was found moving on motorcycle towards Katha and he was identified on the

¶41

7 (2025:HHC:9715)

¶42

basis of the CCTV Footage. However, Ajay Kumar was not found involved in the quarrel, which had taken place in the parking of Truck Union, Baddi.

¶43

On 4.09.2024, test identification parade was got conducted by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh. However, accused Ram Karan (applicant) was not identified by the complainant, as well as, Ankush.

¶44

After completion of the investigation, final report was filed in the Court, on 23.11.2024, in which, the applicant has been kept in Column No.12, in the category of suspect.

¶45

In this case, the police has moved an application for releasing accused Ajay Kumar and Ram Karan (applicant), from judicial custody on the ground that both Ajay Kumar and Ram Karan (applicant) were kept in column No.12. The application was fixed for 10.4.2025, for recording the evidence.

¶46

Investigation, in the present case is complete and in the charge sheet, filed before the learned trial Court, the applicant was kept in Column No.12, as there is no

¶47

8 (2025:HHC:9715)

¶48

direct evidence against the applicant. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody.

¶49

Even otherwise, when, the investigating agency itself had moved an application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, for discharge of the applicant, then this Court is of the view that the applicant is able to make out a case for releasing him on bail, as the applicant has approached this Court for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial and not seeking the discharge.

¶50

When, the applicant, has not been identified by the complainant, as well as, injured Ankush, then, he deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶51

Moreover, on the ground of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as, his co-accused Ajay Kumar, has already been released, on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 01.04.2025, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.652 of 2025.

¶52

9 (2025:HHC:9715)

¶53

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.207 of 2024, dated 25.08.2024, registered, under Sections 103, 127(2), 125(b), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS, with Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli.

¶54

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

¶55

“a) Applicant shall make himself 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 by filing appropriate application;

¶56

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

¶57

c) 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) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.”

¶59

10

¶60

(2025:HHC:9715)

¶61

Any of the observations made herein above shall

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent Jail, Sub Jail, Nalagarh, District Solan, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this

¶66

11

¶67

(2025:HHC:9715)

¶68

Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶69

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶70

April 08, 2025 (ps)

¶71

Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.04.08 16:55:07 IST

Ram Karan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State of Hp and Another

Banita Devi Vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

Rishi Sharma Vs Prince Thakur

Ramesh Sharma Vs State of Hp

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Chaman Lal Vs Allwyn Mine Chem Insutries