Ankush Kumar @ Gharati Vs State of Hp

the BNSS for grant of regular bail, in FIR No.14 of 2024, dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Mcleodganj, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 302, 323, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the status report.

¶18

In the case at hand, a telephonic information was received in Police Station, Mcleodganj from the hospital that an individual belonging 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

2

¶20

to the State of Punjab has been brought to the hospital and he has dead. On receiving the aforesaid information, the police rushed to the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. The informant, in the case at hand, is one Harmanpreet Singh, who got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC. As per the informant, on 20.03.2024, he along with his elder brother Navdeep Singh, brother-in-law Gagandeep Singh and their friend Sandeep Awan had come to Mcleodganj in vehicle bearing No. PB-36H7127.

¶21

At Mcleodganj, they had stayed at hotel named OM Palace at Bhagsunag. On 21.03.2024 for having breakfast, they had gone to the Aryan Coffee Shop. When they were sitting inside the coffee shop, the owner of the shop had asked them to refrain from consuming alcohol in his coffee shop. Informant along with others had informed the coffee shop owner i.e., Hoshiar Singh that they would not be consuming alcohol in the morning.

¶22

Upon this, an altercation took place inside the coffee shop. While the altercation was taking place inside coffee shop, the son of the coffee shop owner, i.e., Aryan also arrived on the spot. The father, son duo pushed the informant along with Navdeep, Gagandeep and Sanjeev Avan outside the coffee shop. Once they were outside the coffee shop, Hoshiar Singh owner of the coffee shop loudly insinuated against the aforesaid four individuals.

¶23

On hearing Hoshiar Singh, coffee shop owner shouting at the aforesaid four individuals, his relatives Ankush Kumar @ Garati (bail

¶24

3

¶25

petitioner), Ankush Kapoor, Kunal Neharia @ Sagar, Vicky, taxi operator Raman Kumar @ Banta and one Ajay Kumar rushed towards the coffee shop. Ajay Kumar accused, Ankush Kumar @ Garati (bail petitioner), Hoshiar Singh and accused Aryan got hold of deceased Navdeep Singh outside the coffee shop.

¶26

The other individuals including Kunal Nehria @ Sagar started beating Harmanpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Sanjeev Ayan and pushed them towards rain shed, in the ensuing scuffle. As per the own case of the prosecution, insofar as the scuffle with the deceased Navdeep Singh is concerned, only Ankush Kumar @ Garati (bail petitioner), Hoshiar Singh and Aryan, coffee shop owners are said to have been involved.

¶27

Investigation in the case at hand is complete. Challan stands filed on 06.06.2024. No recoveries are to be effected from the petitioner. Insofar, as Hoshiar Singh and Aryan are concerned, they had filed separate bail petitions bearing Cr.MP(M) No.2823 of 2025 & 2824 of 2025, respectively. The same were allowed vide judgment dated 27.02.2026.

¶28

The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has observed that personal liberty of an individual is a precious fundamental right and should not be curtailed unless it is imperative in the given facts and circumstances.

¶29

No doubt, the allegations are serious but these are mere allegations and at this stage, presumption of innocence attaches to the

¶30

4

¶31

accused. In Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court held that seriousness of allegations cannot be the sole factor to deny bail to an accused. The same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Navendu Babbar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2345 , where it was observed that the offence is no doubt grave and serious but that cannot by itself be a factor to decline bail.

¶32

No doubt, the allegations against the applicants are serious but there is merit in the contention that the applicants have been incarcerated since 22.03.2024. In Prabhakar Tewari (supra) , the Supreme Court has held that gravity of the offence cannot be the sole basis for denial of bail. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 731 , the Supreme Court held that undertrials cannot be detained in jail indefinitely pending trial. In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Supreme Court held as under :-

¶33

“2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.”

¶34

In Puneet Rana v. State NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No.

¶35

1882/2022 , decided on 19.05.2022, the Supreme Court granted bail to the

¶36

5

¶37

Petitioner charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/356/379/323/506/34 IPC looking to the fact that material witnesses had been examined and 23 more witnesses were remaining to be examined and there was no likelihood of trial being completed soon. In Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 , the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused charged under Sections 302/120B IPC considering the long custody of four and half years and the possibility that the trial was not likely to conclude soon and relevant passage is as follows:-

¶38

“5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, by now, has undergone more than four and a half years' of sentence. The prosecution intends to examine 76 witnesses, out of whom 53 have already deposed. All the crucial witnesses have already been examined. The instant case was adjourned on few occasions to enable the prosecution to examine Chauthmal Kashyap and Manohar Rathore, who were stated to be the vital witnesses. Their deposition is also complete.”

¶39

It is argued that speedy trial is guaranteed to an accused under the Constitution of India and it would be unfair if Applicant continues under incarceration awaiting the conclusion of trial which is going to take years from now looking at the number of witnesses remaining to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. In Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11714/2022 , decided on 15.02.2023, the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner on the ground that he had been in custody for more than 14 months and

¶40

6

¶41

since crucial witnesses had been examined, there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence.

¶42

In the case at hand, there are total 36 prosecution witnesses. Out of which, 15 witnesses were examined and 8 witnesses have to be examined on 30/31.03.2026. Conclusion of trial would take some time.

¶43

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Supreme Court observed that object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial and to receive punishment if convicted and is neither punitive nor preventive.

¶44

In Sanjay Chandra (supra) , the Supreme Court observed as

¶45

under:-

¶46

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶47

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be

¶48

7

¶49

deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶50

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

¶51

20. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias pappu

¶52

yadav and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , the Supreme Court observed that though at the stage of granting bail detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to undertake an exercise of looking into the circumstances and factors such as nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court, in support of the charge. In this backdrop, only for a limited purpose of deciding these bail petitions, the Court has examined the testimonies of eye-witnesses recorded in the case at hand.

¶53

Hence, after going through the material available on record and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail

¶54

8

¶55

application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in FIR No.14 of 2024, dated 21.03.2024, registered at Police Station, Mcleodganj, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 302, 323, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. This bail order is subject, however, to the following conditions:-

¶56

(i) Petitioner shall 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;

¶57

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever;

¶58

(iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

¶59

(iv) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the victim and Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

¶60

(v) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, Email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any; &

¶61

(vi) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard.

¶62

Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated by the petitioners.

¶63

9

¶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 trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

¶65

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶66

In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra. The Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶67

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned trial Court by FASTER.

¶68

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 the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

¶69

( Bipin Chander Negi) March 20, 2026 (KS) Judge

¶70

Digitally signed by KAMLESH KAMLESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.20 19:49:40 +0000

Ankush Kumar @ Gharati v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Kumar @ Gharati 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

Narender Kumar Vs Shiv Lal Yadav S/O Gopi Chand Yadav

Gian Kaur Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

Prince Vs Director General Defenece Estates

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sonia Devi and Ors.

Partap Singh (Deceased through LRs Balbir and Others) Vs Renuka Ji Dam Project Hppcl and Others

Kesar Singh Vs State of Hp