Abhishek Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 855 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.06.2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Abhishek ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Petitioner Ms. Ankita, Proxy counsel vice Ms. Sakshi Bhardwaj, Mr. Hardik Sharma & Mr. Piyush Awasthi Advocates. 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)

¶3

Bail petitioner, namely Abhishek, who is behind the bars since 01.11.2025, 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. 189 of 2015, dated 09.10.2015, under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶4

2. In terms of order dated 18.05.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and S.I. Om Prakash has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

¶5

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

¶6

2

¶7

3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 09.10.2015, complainant Sunny Thakur lodged a complaint alleging therein that on 19.09.2015, at 2.15 PM, while he was going from Palampur to Bandla, two motorcycles came from Palampur side. He alleged that persons riding the motorcycles after alighting from their motorcycle, gave him beatings and also extended threats that next time they would not spare him. He further alleged that since he had suffered serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body, he be got medically examined from the competent doctor. On receipt of aforesaid complaint, police besides lodging the complaint, also got the complainant examined at Civil Hospital, Palampur, where the doctor opined the injuries suffered by the complainant to be simple in nature. In the aforesaid background, a case under Sections 341, 324 and 34 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner as well as coaccused. Though, petitioner herein was granted on bail by the competent Court of law subject to certain conditions, but since he failed to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court, he was declared as proclaimed offender. However, on 01.11.2025, petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from petitioner, he has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.

¶8

3

¶9

4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 states that petitioner had twice jumped the bail and as such, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice in the event of his being enlarged on bail and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. He further states that matter is listed on 09.06.2026 for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶10

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that in the alleged incident, complainant suffered injuries, which were opined to be simple in nature. Petitioner is behind the bars for more than seven months without his being held guilty and as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during the trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than seven months.

¶11

4

¶12

6. 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.

¶13

7. 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.

¶14

8. 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.

¶15

5

¶16

9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017)

¶17

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.

¶18

10. 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.

¶19

11. 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 one local surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

¶20

6

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

(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

¶24

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

¶25

12. 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.

¶26

13. 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.

¶27

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by

¶28

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.

¶29

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶30

June 02,2026 (shankar)

Abhishek v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek 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

Vivek Katoch Vs Lasha Enterprises and Another

Vineet Rathor Vs State of Hp and Others

Ganesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Munna Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Khem Chand

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others