Vishal Bansal Vs State of Hp

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 in
Cr. Appeal No. 271 of 2020 &
Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026 in
Cr. Appeal No. 233 of 2020
Reserved on : 14.07.2026.
Date of decision: 16.07.2026
Date of upload : 16.07.2026

¶4

1. Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 in Cr. Appal No. 271 of 2020
Amrender Singh Nagra	...Applicant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent.
2. Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal No. 233 of 2020
Vishal Bansal	...Applicant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh __________________________________________________	…Respondent. __________________________
Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

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

¶8

2

¶9

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶10

Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 in Cr. Appal No. 271 of 2020

¶11

For the Applicant. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal No. 233 of 2020

¶13

For the Applicant. Ms. Pritika Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 in Cr. Appal No. 271 of 2020

¶15

This application has been preferred by the applicant-

¶16

appellant Amrender Singh Nagra for suspension of his sentence awarded to him, vide judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2020, by Additional Sessions Judge(I), Una, District Una, H.P. in Case No. (Registration No.) 51 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Amrender Singh Nagra and Others, arising from FIR No. 26/2016, dated 26.03.2016, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., whereby he along with his co-convicts has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of

¶17

3

¶18

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶19

IPC, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.

¶20

As per the custody certificate placed on record, as on 05.06.2026, applicant Amrender Singh Nagra, had undergone 10 years, 8 months and 24 days of sentence. Thus, as of now, he has undergone approximately 10 years and 10 months of sentence.

¶21

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra, that he and co-convict Yuvraj Singh (appellant No. 2) were convicted for committing the offence pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched between them, and that both had actively participated

¶22

4

¶23

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶24

in the commission of the offence. It has further been contended that the gravity of the offence attributed to both of them is the same, as they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the murder of the deceased, Kashmir Singh.

¶25

It has been contended that the conduct and role of coconvict Yuvraj Singh and the applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra, are identical, and that the role attributed to each of them in the commission of the offence is the same. Therefore, it has been submitted that Amrender Singh Nagra is also entitled to the same treatment as has been extended to co-convict Yuvraj Singh.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra has submitted that co-convict Yuvraj Singh has been granted bail by the Supreme Court by suspending his sentence awarded to him vide order dated 13.02.2026 , passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 4698/2025 , titled Yuvraj Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr . after taking into consideration that Yuvraj Singh had undergone custody of 9 years 10 months and 7 days at the time of passing of the order by the Supreme Court. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Supreme Court reads as under:-

¶27

“4. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.51/2016 (FIR No.26/2016), registered at Police Gagret, District Una,

¶28

5

¶29

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶30

under Sections 302, 392, 341, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 27.02.2020.

¶31

The appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.271/2020 before the High Court, in which he applied for suspension of sentence and consequential release on bail. The same has been denied vide impugned order dated 17.10.2023.

¶32

The appellant has, meanwhile, undergone 9 years, 10 months and 17 days of actual custody.

¶33

It is true, as pointed out by the learned State counsel, that the main appeal is now listed for final hearing. However, keeping in view the period undergone by the appellant and other mitigating circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the instant appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 is set aside and while suspending the sentence of the appellant, he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court at Una.”

¶34

Similar role of Yuvraj Singh and Amrender Singh Nagra has not been disputed, rather perusal of charge-sheet, evidence led by prosecution and inference drawn by Trial Court indicate that both Amrender Singh Nagra and Yuvraj Singh are sailing in one and same boat and they have similar role in commission of the offence. Therefore, Amrender Singh Nagra also deserves same treatment like Yuvraj Singh.

¶35

It has been submitted that applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra and Yuvraj Singh are law abiding citizens and both are residents of same town, i.e., Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Applicant-appellant

¶36

6

¶37

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶38

Amrender Singh Nagra is in custody since 13.04.2016, whereas coconvict Yuvraj Singh was arrested on 21.04.2016.

¶39

In view of above suspension of sentence of co-convict Yuvraj Singh by the Supreme Court, as referred supra , substantive sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra is also ordered to be suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited and also subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, with undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant-appellant Amrender Singh Nagra will surrender before the Court.

¶40

Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record.

¶41

Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026 in

¶42

Cr. Appeal No. 233 of 2020

¶43

This application has been preferred by the applicantappellant Vishal Bansal for suspension of his sentence awarded to him, vide judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2020, by Additional Sessions Judge(I), Una, District Una, H.P. in Case No. (Registration No.) 51 of 2016, titled State of Himachal

¶44

7

¶45

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶46

Pradesh vs. Amrender Singh Nagra and Others, arising from FIR No. 26/2016, dated 26.03.2016, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., whereby he along with his co-convicts has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of non payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.

¶47

As per the custody certificate placed on record, applicantappellant, Vishal Bansal, had undergone a sentence of 8 years, 7 months and 9 days as on 28.03.2026. Accordingly, as on date, he has undergone approximately 8 years and 10 months of sentence, after deducting the

¶48

8

¶49

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶50

period during which he remained absconding as well as the period spent on parole.

¶51

It has been contended on behalf of applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal that co-convict Yuvraj Singh has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court by suspending his sentence and for having the same role in commission of offence, he is also entitled for suspension of sentence on the ground of parity.

¶52

Apart from party, it has also been contended on behalf of applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal that findings returned by the Trial Court are not sustainable, as there is no evidence to establish involvement of applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal in commission of offence and, therefore, there is a fair chance of acquittal and applicant-appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending sentence imposed upon him.

¶53

In response to the prayer of the applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal, reply has been filed on behalf of State, stating therein that vide order dated 27.10.2021, passed in CWP No. 3057 of 2021, benefit of parole was extended to applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal, however, he failed to comply with the directions of the Court and did not surrender before the authorities at Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. even after expiry of parole period. It has been submitted that applicant-

¶54

9

¶55

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶56

appellant Vishal Bansal absconded and fled to Nepal. Thereafter, in compliance of direction issued by the Court in CWP No. 3429 of 2022 titled Sarbjeet Singh vs. State of H.P. , applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal was traced in Nepal by Police of District Una and was arrested on 21.12.2023 after 1 year 11 months and 1 day, and thereafter, he was sent to Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. Despite having been granted concession on parole by the Court, applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal had willfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and failed to surrender after expiry of parole period and, hence, present application is devoid of merits.

¶57

Referring to the aforesaid incident, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal, had earlier fled to Nepal after being released on parole. It is further submitted that there is no reliable material available on record assuring that he would not repeat such conduct if released again.

¶58

The conduct of the applicant-appellant, Vishal Bansal, in the recent past clearly distinguishes his case from that of the other coconvicts, notwithstanding his similar role in the commission of the offence. Conduct of the applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal does not render assurance that, if enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence, he would

¶59

10

¶60

2026:HHC:29023 2026:HHC:29022 Cr.M.P. No. 820 of 2026 Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2026

¶61

remain available to face the proceedings and would not abscond or flee to Nepal.

¶62

In the given facts and circumstances, case of the applicantappellant Vishal Bansal is little bit different from co-convicts Yuvraj Singh and Amrender Singh Nagra and, therefore, he can be treated differently, at this stage.

¶63

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, the applicant-appellant Vishal Bansal is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

¶64

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding present applications.

¶65

In view of above, both the applications are disposed of.

¶66

Judge.

¶67

(Ranjan Sharma), Judge.

¶68

16^th July, 2026 (Susheel)

Vishal Bansal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

Vishal Bansal 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

Ek Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Riya Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Janardhan Alias Jasvir

Amrender Singh Nagra and Anr. Vs State of Hp

M/S H.M. Steels Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

State of Hp Vs Mohd Usman Alias Sahil