PANKAJ KUMAR vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 1066 of 2026
Reserved on: 29.7.2026
Decided on: 30.7.2026
Pankaj Kumar ….Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & anr. ….Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner : M/s Y.K. Thakur, Bhanu Verma
and Ritik Prashar,
Advocates.
For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No.35 of 2026, dated 25.2.2026,
registered at Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103
read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nahaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the
deceased went to Urmila Devi’s house on 24.2.2026, at about
11.36 p.m. and started hurling abuses, banging on the door and
accusing her of having ruined the life of the son of the deceased.
The petitioner and his father came out of the residence on
hearing the commotion. The petitioner tried to pacify the
deceased and persuade her to leave the spot. However, the
deceased continued shouting, hurling abuses and creating
disturbances. The deceased fell on the pathway near the vehicles.
She stood up on her own. The co-accused Ajay Thakur arrived on
the spot after jumping over the gate of the petitioner's premises
and pushed her into a drain. She sustained injuries and
subsequently succumbed to them. The petitioner was not an
aggressor, but he was trying to pacify the deceased. He had called
the Police Station on 24.02.2026 at about 11.37 p.m.; however, no
entry was recorded by the police in the daily diary. The
allegations, even if accepted to be true, do not constitute the
commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of the
BNS. There is no material to show that the petitioner shared the
common intention with the co-accused. As per the prosecution,
the act of pushing the deceased by Ajay Thakur led to her death,
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
which is an independent act. The petitioner is a permanent
resident of District Mandi, H.P. He has roots in the society. His
wife is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, and she requires
constant care. The petitioner would abide by the terms and
conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that
the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on
bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police had gone for patrolling on 24.02.2026.
They received information at about 11.57 p.m., regarding a
quarrel taking place at Arthi Road. The police reached the spot at
about 12.10 p.m. and found a woman lying in a drain. She was
taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The
informant made a statement that the petitioner Pankaj Kumar
and co-accused Ajay were quarrelling with the deceased. Pankaj
had pushed the deceased and thereafter beaten her with the
branches of Neelkanta. The deceased lost balance and tried to
move backwards. Ajay Thakur reached the spot and pushed her
into the drain. She sustained injuries and succumbed to them.
Subsequently, the petitioner also produced his mobile phone
containing the recording of the incident. The result of the
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
analysis showed that the video recording was prepared at
11:23:57 hours. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as
per their version. The offence is heinous, and the death of a
woman was caused. The prosecution witnesses reside in the same
building in which the petitioner is residing. Releasing the
petitioner on bail would compromise the fair trial as the
petitioner could easily influence the witnesses. The cause of
death was found to be Spinal shock secondary to blunt trauma
sustained to the neck region and asphyxia secondary to
antemortem wet drowning. The quantity of alcohol in the blood
was found to be 150.17 mg%. The police have filed the charge
sheet before the Court. Hence the report.
4. I have heard M/s Y.K. Thakur, Bhanu Varma and Ritik
Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender
Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the
respondent/State.
5. Mr Y.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely
implicated. As per the statements of prosecution witnesses, the
petitioner had only tried to pacify the deceased. Co-accused Ajay
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
Thakur had pushed the deceased. The petitioner had not shared
any common intention with the co-accused. He submitted that
the petitioner had made telephonic call to the police regarding
the incident at 11.30 PM and 11.57 PM. Hence, he prayed that the
present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
He relied upon the following judgments in support of his
submission: -
(i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand alias Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308;
(ii) Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240;
(iii) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012 (1) SCC 40;
(iv) Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. UOI (2018) 11 SCC 1; and
(v) Rahul Singh Vs. State of H.P. 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC)
7223
6. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner
is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He and the
co-accused Ajay Thakur had created such circumstances which
led to the death of the deceased. The petitioner is residing in the
same building in which key eyewitnesses are residing. The
petitioner would influence witnesses on his release on bail.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
7. I have given a considerable thought to the
submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC
314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:
( i ) Broad principles for the grant of bail
56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1
SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115 , Krishna Iyer, J., while
elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India in the context of personal liberty of a person
under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be
considered while granting bail, which are extracted as
under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)
“ 7 . It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.
8 . Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being .
[ Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England”
(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 —
Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]
9 . Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who
is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record,
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
habituals, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance .” (emphasis supplied)
57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674 , this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
“ 8 . The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing
of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public or State and similar other considerations. It has also
to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail
the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic
itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the
accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
prima facie evidence in support of the charge .” (emphasis
supplied)
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 , speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
“ 3 . Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order
for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case
to case. While the placement of the accused in society,
though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding
factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should
always be coupled with other circumstances warranting
the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the
basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more
heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection
of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual
matrix of the matter .” (emphasis supplied)
59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977 , this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application
cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the
court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
justifying the grant of bail.
60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765 , this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order
granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors
which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant
bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
“ 9 . … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are :
( i ) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence ;
( ii ) nature and gravity of the accusation ;
( iii ) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction ;
( iv ) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail ;
( v ) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused ;
( vi ) likelihood of the offence being repeated ;
( vii ) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
( viii ) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail .” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx
62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of
application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170 , wherein a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order
( Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856
and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat
2857 ) of the High Court granting bail to the accused,
observed as follows: ( Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022)
4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170] ), SCC p. 511, para 35)
“ 35 . While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused
and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly,
when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material
brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima
facie conclusion. While considering an application for the
grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported
by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to
the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due
consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the
nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a
conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an
accused .” (emphasis supplied)
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.
Balchand , (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC
261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the
gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests
otherwise. It was observed at page 308:
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.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely
to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and
must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.
So also, the heinousness of the crime….”
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
10. Similar views were taken in Sanjay Chandra (supra)
and Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) .
11. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. Copy of the FIR shows that the petitioner came out of
the room. He picked up a branch of Neelkanta and gave beatings
to the deceased. She went towards the Nallah and abused the
petitioner. Ajay Thakur came to the spot in the meantime and
pushed her into the Nallah. The deceased sustained injuries
which led to her death.
13. These circumstances show that the petitioner had
initially given beatings to the deceased, pushed her and the
deceased was forced to go to a Nallah. The co-accused pushed her
from the Nallah. Thus, the acts of the petitioner and the co-
accused formed a single indivisible act which led to the death of
the deceased. Prima facie , the act of the petitioner would be
covered under Section 103 read with Section 3(8) of the BNS. It
was laid down in Subbappa Channappa v. Emperor , 1912 SCC
OnLine Bom 10: 1913 Cri LJ 235 that where the accused were acting
in concert in the sense that their attack was a single indivisible
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
thing, both of them would be liable by virtue of Section 37 of the
Indian Penal Code. It was observed at page 235:
4.  On the evidence, it is further established that the two
appellants were acting in concert in the sense that their
attack was a single indivisible thing, so that both of them
would be liable for the result which ensued. That is the
consequence of the provisions of section 37 of the Penal
Code which enacts that when an offence is committed by
means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates
in the commission of that offence by doing any one of
those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person,
commits that offence. On the evidence, we are satisfied, as
the learned Judge was satisfied, that the first appellant,
who used the stick, intentionally co-operated in the
commission of the murder with the second appellant, who
used the still more cruel weapon, the stone .
14. It has been stated in Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023,
th
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 36 Edition, 2025. LexisNexis India that
where the acts of two persons bring a result, they are liable for it
even though they may not have a common intention. It is
observed in Volume 1 at page 129:
This Section provides that, when several acts are done so
as to result together in the commission of an offence, the
doing of any one of them, with an intention to cooperate
in the offence (which may not be the same as an intention
common to all), makes the actor liable to be punished for
the commission of the offence. The acts may be several,
but if the accused persons in furtherance of common
intention commit the acts, they are answerable for end-
result or actus reus . Thus, A and B attacked another person,
say C, in furtherance of common intention and concert in
the sense that their attack was a single indivisible act, and
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

13
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
A struck C savagely on the head with a heavy stick and B
smashed C in his skull by a blow dealt with a heavy stone
held firmly in the hand. C died in consequence of the
injuries, but there was no general fight of any description
before the attack. In this situation, by operation of section
37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, A and B both would be
held guilty of murder.
15. The judgment in Rahul Singh (supra) deals with
common intention and is not relevant. The making of calls to the
police will not take away the effect of the act of the accused.
16. The offence of murder is heinous and is punishable
with the extreme penalty of death or imprisonment for life. It
was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , (1978) 1 SCC
240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the
punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was
observed on page 244:
“6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true
principle around which other relevant factors must revolve.
When the case is finally disposed of, and a person is sentenced
to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are
concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to
guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the
applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve
a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with
imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of
considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely
absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be
plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime
charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

14
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is
of extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some
evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the
presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be
enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord
Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and
Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows: [ Mod.
Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51 ]
“I do not think that an accused party is detained in
custody because of his guilt, but because there are
sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as
to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the
detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial ....
It is a very important element in considering whether the
party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial;
and I think that in coming to a determination on that
point, three elements will generally be found the most
important: the charge, the nature of the evidence by
which it is supported, and the punishment to which the
party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the
charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an
admission by the prisoners of the truth of the charge,
and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death.”
7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital
factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The
punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or
conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.
17. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail
considering the severity of the punishment and the nature of the
offence.
18. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court
and the matter is pending for committal proceedings. The trial
has not yet commenced. There is force in the submission of
learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner can
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS

15
2026:HHC:31516
High Court of H.P.
influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Thus, release
of the petitioner on bail will compromise the fair trial.
19. No other point was urged.
20. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to
bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.
21. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
th
30 July, 2026
(Chander)
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2026 13:08:23 :::CIS