Himachal Pradesh High Court: While considering an application for regular bail under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a case involving offences under Sections 103, 127(2), 125(2), 61(2) and 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., held that disclosures by co-accused while in police custody cannot by itself be used against another co-accused to justify continued custody. The Court further held that, where similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail, no specific role had been attributed to the applicant, and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, thereby entitling the applicant to be enlarged on bail.
Also Read: Suicide note absolving accused weakens prima facie abetment case: HP HC
Background
On 25 August 2024, the police received information that 2 persons were lying near Sandoli Khawadiyan in injured condition. One of them was declared fit to make a statement, while the other was found dead. According to the injured witness, he and his friends had travelled to Baddi where a dispute allegedly arose during the purchase of ganja (charas). It was alleged that after a disagreement regarding payment, a quarrel ensued and several local persons assaulted the complainant party with sticks. The complainant stated that although he did not know the assailants, he could identify them. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced.
During investigation, several accused persons were arrested and subjected to a test identification parade (TIP). The police alleged that after the initial dispute, members of the complainant party were chased, apprehended and assaulted by a group of persons. The investigation further suggested that additional associates were called to the spot and that the victims were subsequently taken to their gambling place before being abandoned. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against multiple accused persons, including the applicant, for offences under Sections 103, 127(2), 125(2), 61(2) and 3(5) BNS. The case was pending before the trial court for recording prosecution evidence.
The applicant sought bail contending that he was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and had remained in judicial custody since 27 August 2024. He asserted that the investigation stood completed, no recovery remained to be effected from him, and custodial interrogation was no longer required. The applicant also relied on the principle of parity by pointing out that 3 co-accused had already been released on bail by the Court.
Analysis
The Court noted that, according to the police itself, the applicant’s involvement had been found based on disclosures and revelations allegedly made by co-accused persons during investigation. The Court further noted that such disclosures had been made when the co-accused were in police custody and opined that whatever had been disclosed by the co-accused while in police custody could not be used against another co-accused. The Court specifically observed that based on the alleged disclosures made by other accused persons, nothing could be attributed against the applicant. The Court further highlighted that the disclosures sought to be relied upon against the applicant were inadmissible in evidence.
While considering the plea of parity, the Court noted that 3 co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court through separate orders and held that the applicant was also entitled for the same relief.
The Court, while emphasising that no specific role had been attributed to the applicant in the crime in question, observed that if the applicant was ordered to remain in judicial custody for an indefinite period, such detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. Regarding the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution, the Court opined that reasonable conditions could be imposed upon the applicant, if he was ordered to be released on bail. The Court also noted that the trial was likely to take sufficiently long time for its conclusion and found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody for an indefinite period.
Also Read: Del HC grants bail in Jungpura doctor murder case
Decision
Consequently, while allowing the application, the Court directed that the applicant be released on bail in connection with the FIR upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with 2 sureties in the like amount. The Court further imposed conditions requiring the applicant to attend the trial regularly, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
The Court further directed that if the applicant is not released within 7 days of the grant of bail, the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kishanpura, shall inform the Secretary, DLSA, Solan; and if the applicant fails to furnish bail bonds within 1 month, the matter shall be reported to the Court.
Also read: Supreme Court’s verdict on evidentiary value of disclosure statements under S. 27 of Evidence Act
[Shantanu v. State of H.P., 2026 SCC OnLine HP 5782, decided on 9-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Yug Singhal and Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.
