Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Hp

¶1

Gurcharan Singh vs. State of H.P.

¶2

CrMP No. 2430 of 2026 in Cr.MP(M) No. 1235 of 2025 Reserved on 20.07.2026

¶3

24.07.2026 Present: Mr Karan Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶5

The applicant/petitioner was released on bail

¶6

by this Court on 23.06.2025 subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-. He filed an application stating his inability to furnish the bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-. Hence, the Court reduced the amount to ₹25,000/- vide order dated 17.07.2025. Now the applicant/petitioner has filed another application asserting that he belongs to a very poor family and has no relative, acquaintance or any other person known to him, who can stand surety for him. The applicant is unable to furnish surety bond and is suffering continued detention only on account of his poverty. Therefore, it was prayed that the applicant be released on furnishing personal bonds. Hence the application.

¶7

The State filed a status report asserting that the petitioner's father has expired. The petitioner has two

¶8

2

¶9

brothers who are also residing separately. The petitioner’s family has a strained relationship with him, and nobody is willing to stand surety for him. The petitioner owns a property in the village. Hence, the status report.

¶10

I have heard Mr Karan Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶11

Mr Karan Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is unable to furnish the surety bonds in terms of the order passed by the Court. He has no person who can stand surety for him. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the petitioner be released on furnishing the personal bonds.

¶12

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property and it cannot be said that he is a poor person unable to arrange for the surety. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, and he would abscond in case of his release on the personal bond. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶13

3

¶14

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶15

The record shows that the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 23.06.2025. However, he was unable to furnish the surety bonds mentioned in the order, and he had to apply for the reduction of the amount. This Court reduced the amount of the surety bond, but he has not furnished the surety bonds. More than 1 year has elapsed since the passing of the order by the Court, but the petitioner could not get the benefit of the order because of his inability to furnish the surety bonds. The fact that surety bonds were not furnished for a period of 1 year supports the petitioner's version that he has no person who can stand surety for him; otherwise, the petitioner had no reason to remain behind bars and not to furnish the surety bonds.

¶16

The status report furnished by the police also shows that the petitioner has brothers and sisters, but he has a strained relationship with them. Therefore, they are not ready and willing to furnish surety for him. This report also corroborates the petitioner's version that he cannot furnish the surety bond in terms of the order passed by the Court.

¶17

4

¶18

However, the report shows that the petitioner is the owner of the property. The petitioner can therefore furnish a security bond mortgaging his property in favour of the State to ensure that he attends the date of hearing and faces the trial pending against him. Therefore, the present application is allowed, and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of a personal bond of ₹25,000/- in compliance with the terms and conditions of the order dated 23.06.2025. The petitioner shall also furnish a security bond mortgaging his property till the disposal of the case before the learned Trial Court so that the amount can be realised from it, if the petitioner fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the bail order passed in his favour. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent of District-cum-Open Air Jail, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶19

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of these petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

¶20

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶21

24^th July, 2026 (Nikita)

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khuddu Ram Vs State

Nain Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Sanjay Kumar Vs Daya Nand and Another

State of Hp Vs Sumit Vaidya