Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Hp — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Hp — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Present petition allowed; bail petitioner ordered to be enlarged on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the imposed conditions: (a) availability for interrogation and regular attendance at the trial Court on every hearing date, seeking exemption by appropriate application if prevented; (b) not tampering with prosecution evidence nor hampering the investigation; (c) not making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or Police Officer; and (d) not leaving the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. Misuse of liberty or violation of conditions entitles the investigating agency to move this Court for cancellation of bail; observations are confined to the disposal of this petition alone.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail petitioner Pankaj Kumar, in custody since 20.11.2025 in FIR No. 311 of 2025, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, balancing the gravity of the alleged offences against completed investigation, time already served and the bail-principle factors. +1 more

Court's answer

On the date of the alleged incident the offending vehicle was driven by co-accused Rashik Kumar; one tyre ran over the foot of Inspector Kulwant Singh, who suffered simple injuries, as revealed by photographs and other material on record.

Ratio / Principle

Though the report suggests the petitioner was also sitting in the car, there is no specific evidence adduced on record that he actually instigated co-accused Rashik Kumar to hit the police officials.

Key takeaways

Section 109 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot be invoked against the petitioner because the vehicle which allegedly attempted to run over the police official was being driven by co-accused Rashik, not by him.ratio¶18
The status report nowhere reveals that any contraband was ever recovered at the time of recovery of the vehicle, despite the argument that contraband was being transported at the time of the incident.ratio¶14
The Investigating Officer stated that 3.02 grams of chitta were subsequently recovered from the house of co-accused Rashik Kumar alongwith some currency, but such recovery may not be sufficient to implicate the petitioner for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 49 and 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral order dated 05.03.2026, Cr. MP (M) No. 162 of 2026) allowed a regular-bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by Pankaj Kumar, in custody since 20.11.2025 in FIR No. 311 of 2025 (dated 13.11.2025, Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur) registered under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 49 & 54 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case arose out of the interception of a car (HP-01H-3516) driven by co-accused Rashik Kumar, who allegedly attempted to run over the police and drove over the foot of Inspector Kulwant Singh, causing simple injuries. The Court held that (i) there is no specific evidence that the petitioner, though reportedly in the car, actually instigated the co-accused to hit the police officials; (ii) Section 109 BNS cannot be invoked against the petitioner since the offending vehicle was driven by co-accused Rashik; (iii) the status report discloses no recovery of contraband along with the vehicle, and the Investigating Officer's statement that 3.02 grams of chitta were later recovered from the co-accused's house may not suffice to implicate the petitioner under Sections 49 and 54 BNS; and (iv) the statement of Ms. Nitika @ Ritu (herself apparently in the car yet not made an accused) is not sufficient to conclude the petitioner's guilt. Relying on Dataram Singh, Sanjay Chandra (2012)1 SCC 49, Manoranjana Sinh (2017) 5 SCC 218 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (2010) 14 SCC 496, and noting over four months' custody with the challan already filed, the Court granted bail on a Rs.1.00 lakh bond with two local sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions, clarifying that its observations shall not reflect on the merits of the case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 162 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pankaj Kumar ...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. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner, namely Pankaj Kumar, who is behind the bars since 20.11.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 311 of 2025, dated 13.11.2025, under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 49 & 54 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report and SI Ravi Dutt has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

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

2

2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 13.11.2025, police received information that co-accused Rashik Kumar was going in a car bearing registration No.HP-01H-3516 from Hamirpur to Una with contraband. On the basis of aforesaid information, police firstly laid nakka near Didwin Tikker, but subsequently on the basis of another information, laid nakka near Daghnehri. Co-accused, named hereinabove, while travelling in the car bearing registration No. HP-01H-3516 came from Una to Hamirpur side, but when he was signaled to stop, he attempted to flee with the vehicle as well as contraband. Since police party had parked its vehicle in the middle of the road, co-accused, who was traveling in the offending car, was unable to move forward, but he reversed the vehicle and attempted to hit the police officials. Since despite repeated warnings the co-accused did not stop the vehicle, police officials fired a gunshot on the tyre of the offending vehicle, but yet co- accused did not stop and allegedly ran his car over the foot of one of the official namely, Inspector Kulwant Singh. Police again fired on the rear tyre, but co-accused succeeded in fleeing from the spot. However, subsequently, vehicle was found parked near Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur, Police after taking into custody afore vehicle, also arrested co-accused on 13.11.2025, who during investigation disclosed that persons, namely Pankaj Kumar, Keshav Kalia and Akshit Kumar were also travelling in the

3

car and had instigated co-accused Rashik Kumar to hit the police official. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by co-accused, police arrested all the aforesaid accused on 20.11.2025 and since then they are behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from petitioner, prayer has been made on his behalf for grant of bail.

3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits 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. He further states that it has come in the evidence that petitioner was also travelling with other co-accused and had instigated co-accused Rashik to hit the police official with his car and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while registering the case against him under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 49 & 54 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He states that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, who is allegedly involved in drug peddling, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the

4

date of alleged incident, offending vehicle, as detailed hereinabove, was being driven by co-accused Rashik Kumar. It is the precise case of the prosecution that co-accused, while attempting to free from the spot tried to hit the police officials and in case, police official had not moved away from the road, he would have been killed. Photographs as well as other material adduced on record reveal that one tyre of the offending vehicle ran over the foot of Inspector Kulwant Singh, as a result of which, he suffered simple injuries. Though, report suggests that present bail petitioner alongwith other persons, as named hereinabove, was also sitting in the car, but there is no specific evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that he had actually instigated co-accused Rashik Kumar to hit the police officials.

5. Though, it has been argued at the behest of the respondent that contraband was being transported at the time of incident, but status report nowhere reveals that contraband, if any, was ever recovered at the time of recovery of the vehicle. Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, states that subsequently 3.02 grams of chitta was recovered from the house of co-accused Rashik Kumar alongwith some currency, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to implicate the petitioner inasmuch as commission of the offences punishable under Section 49 and 54 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is concerned.

5

6. During the proceedings of the case, Investigating

Officer produced on record statement given by Ms. Nitika @ Ritu, to state that bail petitioner had instigated co-accused Rashik Kumar to hit the police official, but having carefully perused aforesaid statement, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the Investigating Officer. Interestingly, aforesaid statement of Ms. Nitika @ Ritu suggests that she was also sitting in the car at the relevant time, if it is so, there is no explanation that why she has been not made an accused. Mere statement of aforesaid person to the effect that co-accused Rashik Kumar wanted to stop the vehicle, but bail petitioner herein asked him to run away may not be sufficient to conclude his guilt under aforesaid provision of law.

7. Section 109 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot be invoked against the petitioner for the reason that the vehicle in question, which allegedly attempted to run over the police official was not being driven by him, rather same was being driven by coaccused Rashik. Section 49 provides for punishment in the cases of abetment where the act is committed in consequence thereof. Whether petitioner herein actually abetted or instigated the coaccused Rashik Kumar to commit the alleged act, is a question to be decided by the Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution and as such, this Court sees no reason

6

to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during the trial when he has already suffered for more than four months.

8. 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. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

10. 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

7

amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

11. 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.

12. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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.

13. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like

8

amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(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;

(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

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

14. 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.

15. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

March 05,2026 (shankar)