Waseem Beg Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No.155 of 2026 Date of Decision:02.03.2026

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Waseem Beg ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the petitioner : Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur & Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

Bail petitioner namely Waseem Beg, who is behind bars since 02.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.271 of 2025, dated 02.11.2025, under Sections 109, 126 (2), 352 and 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNS ’), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶5

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

¶6

2

¶7

2. Respondent-State has filed status report, perusal

¶8

whereof reveals that on 02.11.2025, Police recorded the statement of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar, who alleged that on 02.11.2025 at about 05:15 p.m., he along with his friends Dil Kumar and Sandeep was sitting in the shop of the bail-petitioner Waseem Beg, from whom his friend Dil Kumar had to take Rs.10,000/-. Complainant alleged that some altercation took place inter se Dil Kumar and the bail-petitioner over aforesaid amount. He alleged that bail-petitioner started quarreling with him as well as his friends, but he along with his friends left the shop of the bailpetitioner and went towards Lower Nihal in the car bearing registration No.HP-23A-5536 of the Sandeep Kumar. He alleged that when they reached near Lower Nihal, bail-petitioner came from behind driving his car bearing registration No.-24E-9909 and parked the same in front of their car. He alleged that bail-petitioner, after having alighted from his car, attempted to attack Dil Kumar with drat (sickle), but fortunately Dil Kumar did not sustain any injury, however, while trying to save Dil Kumar, he received multiple injuries. He alleged that bail-petitioner, with a intention to kill him, though attempted to hit him on his head, but he saved himself by raising his hands. He alleged that while defending himself, he suffered grievous injury on his arm as well as hand. In

¶9

3

¶10

the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and bail-petitioner is behind bars since 02.11.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bailpetitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

¶11

3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Banshtu, states that though no head injury was caused to the complainant Vijay Kumar, but there is ample evidence adduced on record to prove that bailpetitioner had given drat blow on the head of the Dil Kumar and had complainant not saved himself by raising his hands, he would have been killed by the bail-petitioner, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Investigating Agency, while registering the case against the petitioner under Sections 109, 126 (2), 352 and 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He states that bare perusal of status report reveals that in past, more than six

¶12

4

¶13

cases stand registered against the bail-petitioner, which itself suggests that bail-petitioner is a hardened criminal, who in the event of being enlarged on bail may not only flee from justice, but may also cause harm to the complainant, whose statement is yet to be recorded in the competent Court of law, as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected.

¶14

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated because there is ample evidence adduced on record to suggest that on the date of alleged incident, an altercation took place inter se complainant party and the bail-petitioner, who allegedly first attempted to give drat blow on the head of Dil Kumar, but he saved himself. Complainant, who attempted to save his friend, was given drat blow on his head, but ultimately complainant suffered injuries on his arm and hand. Though in the case at hand, Medical Officer attending upon the complainant has opined that injuries No.1 & 2 are grievous in nature, but he has categorically stated that same were not dangerous to life and were caused by semi sharp edged weapon. Having noticed contents of FIR, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had no

¶15

5

¶16

intention to give drat blow on the head of the complainant, rather altercation had taken place inter se him as well as Dil Kumar, who was able to save himself. Whether bail-petitioner had actually given drat blow on the head of the complainant or whether the complainant suffered injuries while saving his friend Dill Kumar, is a question to be determined by the learned Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution. Since the injuries sustained by the complainant have not been found to have been inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon and have further not been opined to be dangerous to life, coupled with the fact that the complainant now stands discharged and is out of danger, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, especially when he has already remained in custody for more than three months.

¶17

5. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged

¶18

6

¶19

on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

¶20

6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr ., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

¶21

2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home

¶22

7

¶23

(whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶24

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶25

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in

¶26

8

¶27

prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

¶28

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

¶29

8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶30

9

¶31

9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus

¶32

Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

¶33

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶34

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

¶35

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶36

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency.

¶37

10

¶38

11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶39

12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

¶40

13. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the learned trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

¶41

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶42

March 02, 2026 ( sunil )

Waseem Beg v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Beg 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

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Hp

Charan Dass Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Choudhary Vs State of Hp

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ravinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ashish Sharma Vs Madhu Bahl and Others