Taman Preet vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Since all the above-captioned petitions arise from one FIR, same were taken up together and are now being disposed of vide this common judgment.

Bail petitioners, namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, and Taman Preet, who are behind the bars since 31.05.2026/01.06.2026, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.45 of 2026, dated 31.05.2026, registered at Police Station Manikaran, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 109, 115(2), 324(4), 351(2), 352, 117(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

In all the above-captioned petitions, respondent-State has filed status reports, and ASI Kushal Kumar, Police Station Manikaran, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of the status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 30.05.2026, SI Hoshiar Singh, Investigating Officer, Police Station Manikaran, recorded a statement of Priyanshu Thakur under Section 173 of BNSS, wherein he, while claiming himself to be a resident of Village Bagiyanda, Post Office Jari, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, alleged that on 30.05.2026, he took passengers from Katagla Valley View Hotel and reached near Gurudwara Road at around 4:12 PM towards Manikaran and dropped them at Gurudwara Road. After that, while he was going towards Manikaran, driving vehicle bearing No.HP-01K-8418 (Alto Car), three persons were walking in the middle of the road on uphill side. He alleged that to avoid breaking the momentum of vehicle, he blew horn, but they did not move aside, rather one of them turned back and dared him to run over him. Without arguing much, said Priyanshu Thakur, accelerated the car and drove away. He alleged that there was a traffic congestion about 100 meters ahead, as a result thereof his car was stuck in the jam, and in the meanwhile, aforesaid three persons also caught up with complainant and attempted to give him beatings. Complainant alleged that he closed the front windows and locked the car from inside, but the rear windows of the car were open, as a result thereof, one person in a blue shirt slapped him from behind. Said Priyanshu recorded a video wherein they were threatening to kill him. He alleged that though these persons attempted to damage his car, but he turned his car from the front and started going towards Kasol. He also alleged that while he was going towards Kasol, aforesaid persons who had given him beatings, while he was stuck in the jam, came from behind driving car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612 and he called ASI Prem of Police Station Manikaran on his phone No.85447-84882 at 4:29 PM, who asked him to call on phone No.78078-32535 of Police Station Bhuntar, on which he called Police Station Manikaran and he was asked to come to the Police Station, but he could not reach to the Police Station due to a traffic jam. He alleged that in the meantime, these persons, who were chasing him in their car, overtook and went ahead and he was left behind. He called Ranjan Saklani's phone No.98575-00130 at Police Post Dunkhra at 4:56 PM, who assured that they would stop the car. He also disclosed to the Police that he also called his friend Yuvraj on his phone No.80917-71072 at 5:01 PM, who was at Kasol along with his friends. He disclosed entire incident to Yuvraj and his friends, who saw the car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612 parked outside Hotel Green Valley, Kasol. In the meantime, he also reached there. He alleged that there was only one person inside the car, but when they started talking to him, he started abusing them. Then his friend Yuvraj pulled him out. He alleged that thereafter, person who was pulled outside the car called his friends and thereafter, three more people came and one young man in a white shirt asked to go outside and talk. He alleged when he asked him that why did he hit him, person who was sitting in the car took out his gun and put it behind his pants. He slapped him and that person ran behind the car and started loading his pistol. Then his friends Ankush, Yuvraj, Chandan, Bhanu, Avinash, Hem Sharma and he himself tried to snatch the pistol from that person, but in that scuffle, that person fell down and while lying down, he fired two bullets from his pistol with the intention to kill them. One bullet hit the glass of Green Valley Hotel and one bullet hit his friend Yuvraj's leg. After that, all of them ran here and there out of fear and Yuvraj was lying there. His friend Sagar picked up Yuvraj on his back and started running. He alleged that as they ran, the man ran after them with pistol and started firing, but his pistol jammed and he could not fire.

In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against persons, namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, Karandeep Singh, Taman Preet and Sukhmandeep, who being a juvenile, has been already enlarged on bail. Save and except accused Karandeep Singh, all the other accused, who are behind bars, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail on the ground that they have been falsely implicated, because they were the persons who were given beatings by the complainant and his friends, qua which an FIR bearing No.46 of 2026 was lodged at Police Station Manikaran.

Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioners, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of bail.

Learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently argued that bare perusal of the status report itself suggests that it was the complainant and his friends who actually gave beatings to the accused named in the FIR and were aggressors in the third incident, as a result whereof, one of the accused, namely Manpreet Singh, apprehending danger to his life, though pulled out the pistol, but before he could use the same, complainant's friends started snatching the pistol and in that -6-process, two bullets were fired, one of which, unfortunately, hit the leg of Yuvraj. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further argued that it was the complainant party which came to the Hotel Green Valley, where accused named in the FIR were putting up and it is on the provocation of the complainant and his friends, three of the accused named in the FIR came out of their room and attempted to save one of their friends, namely Karandeep Singh, who was being given merciless beatings by the complainant and his friends.

Learned counsel representing the petitioners further contended that perusal of status report itself suggests that gunshot was fired by bail petitioner Manpreet Singh to save himself, when he was overpowered by six to seven persons, including the complainant and as such, it cannot be concluded that he had intention and knowledge, if any, to commit an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS (Section 307 of IPC), which otherwise is essential for invoking Section 109 of BNS. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further contended that otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioners behind bars during trial, especially when they have already suffered for almost two and a half months.

While fairly admitting the factum with regard to the completion of investigation, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of -7-the offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve leniency, rather, they need to be dealt with severely. While making this Court peruse status report as well as the record brought by the Investigating Officer, Mr. Panwar attempted to argue that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that on the date of the alleged incident, complainant was firstly chased by accused named in the FIR and thereafter, they also attempted to kill him as well as his friends by firing gunshots and as such, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the investigating agency while registering case under Section 109 of BNS against all the accused. He submitted that bare use of pistol, coupled with the fact that two gunshots were fired, is sufficient to conclude intention and knowledge of the accused to commit an offence punishable under Section 109. He submitted that since all the bail petitioners hail from the State of Punjab, there is every likelihood of their fleeing from justice in the event of being enlarged on bail and as such, prayer made on their behalf for grant of bail may be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of the alleged incident, three separate incidents had actually happened.

First incident allegedly happened when complainant, after his having dropped passengers near Manikaran Gurudwara, was going towards Kasol. Allegedly, Manpreet Singh, Taman Preet, and Armaan Randhawa, were walking in the middle of the road up uphill side. Though by blowing horn, complainant cautioned above-mentioned three persons to move aside, but allegedly they did not, rather, taunted the complainant by saying "Upar hi chadha dega" (do you want to run us over). However, at that time, no altercation took place inter se complainant and aforesaid persons.

Second incident allegedly happened when vehicle being driven by complainant got stuck in traffic jam. Allegedly, the petitioners who had some oral altercation 100 meters back came on the spot and tried to give beatings to the complainant. As per own version of complainant, he had locked his vehicle from inside, but yet one of the accused succeeded in giving only slap from the rear glass, and thereafter, he managed to turn his vehicle towards Kasol and allegedly, aforesaid three persons attempted to chase him in their car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612. However, as per own version of complainant, car, detailed hereinabove, overtook his vehicle and while doing so, no harm of any kind was caused to the complainant by the occupants of the car.

Third incident happened at Hotel Green Valley, Kasol. As per own version of complainant, while his car was overtaken by accused, namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa and Taman Preet, he, besides giving telephonic call to Police, also called his friend Yuvraj, who at relevant time was already present at Kasol along with his friends. Since complainant had already shared the number of the car with his friend Yuvraj, aforesaid Yuvraj, along with his friends, noticed afore car parked near Green Valley Hotel, Kasol, and as such, he went towards afore Hotel and in the meantime, complainant also reached there. When complainant, along with his friends, reached afore Hotel, one person was found sitting in car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612. Friend of complainant confronted person sitting in the car that why he slapped his friend and some altercation took place inter se complainant party as well as person sitting in the car. Yuvraj slapped Karandeep Singh, who was sitting in the car, as a result of which he raised hue and cry and called his friends, who at relevant time were present in their respective rooms.

Immediately, Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, and Taman Preet, reached on the spot. Complainant, along with his friends Yuvraj, Ankush, Chandan, Bhanu, Avinash, and Hem Sharma, started questioning accused, named hereinabove, that why did they give beatings to complainant and in that process, scuffle took place inter se complainant party and accused. As per status report, bail petitioner Manpreet Singh pulled out pistol from his pocket and attempted to load it, but before he could use the same, complainant party attempted to overpower him and he was pinned down to the ground, but in this process, two gunshots were fired. One hit the windowpane of Hotel Green Valley and second hit the leg of injured Yuvraj. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, has been lodged against all the bail petitioners and other accused, namely Karandeep Singh and Sukhmandeep.

Having carefully perused status report as well as record made available to this Court, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing petitioners that in the first incident, which allegedly happened on the road leading towards Kasol, no scuffle of any kind took place inter se complainant and accused, namely Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa, and Taman Preet. Similarly, though in second incident, which happened while vehicle of complainant was stuck in traffic jam, no injury was caused to the complainant, rather, he was slapped by one of the accused wearing a blue shirt and thereafter, complainant left the spot and went towards Kasol.

Allegedly, vehicle being driven by Manpreet Singh, Armaan Randhawa and Taman Preet overtook the vehicle of complainant, but while doing so, they did no wrong to the complainant, who thereafter informed his friends with regard to beating given to him by the occupants of car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612, which was subsequently found to be parked near Hotel Green Valley. Gunshot, which allegedly came to be fired, was actually fired in the third incident, which can be said to have started on reaching of complainant and his friends in Hotel Green Valley, Kasol. It is own case of the prosecution that complainant and his friends confronted one person sitting in the car bearing No.PB-02EM-4612 that why did they slap complainant. Since person sitting in the car was given beating by Yuvraj, he raised alarm and thereafter, his friends also reached on the spot and scuffle took place inter se complainant party and accused. While bail petitioner Manpreet Singh, after being overpowered by complainant party, fell on the ground, he pulled out his pistol and allegedly fired two gunshots, one of which hit Yuvraj, who as a consequence thereof suffered injury on his leg.

During proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioners made available three to four video recordings of the incident, authenticity whereof is yet to be established on record by proving the same in accordance with law. However, Investigating Officer present in the Court apprised this Court that video recordings made available to this Court have been already taken into possession by the Police, but same have been sent for forensic analysis.

After having perused video recordings, coupled with the fact that that entire incident of beatings as well as firing gunshot happened in third incident, this Court is of the view that complainant party first provoked person sitting in the car, which had allegedly overtaken the vehicle of the complainant. Yuvraj slapped person sitting in the car, whereafter his other friends also reached on the spot and scuffle took place inter se them. Manpreet Singh, no doubt, pulled out his pistol from his pocket, but before he could load the same, complainant party overpowered him, as a result thereof he fell on the ground. Video clearly reveals that five to six persons had overpowered Manpreet Singh and while he was trying to save himself from the clutches of complainant party, two gunshots came to be fired indiscriminately, one of which hit the leg of Yuvraj.

Question which needs to be determined in the case at hand is “whether gunshot fired in such situation can be said to be fired with the intention and knowledge to kill the person or same was fired indiscriminately to save himself from mob attack?”.

Having taken note of sequence of events, which has been taken note of hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, that gunshots were fired by bail petitioner Manpreet Singh to kill complainant or his friends, rather, video clippings and other material adduced on record clearly reveals that gunshots were fired by person, namely Manpreet Singh, to save himself. Otherwise also, it is not clear at this juncture whether gunshots were actually fired by Manpreet Singh or same were accidently fired.

Since it is quite apparent from the status report as well as record made available to this Court that third incident, wherein gunshots were fired, actually happened on the provocation by complainant and his friends, who themselves went to the Hotel of accused party, coupled with the fact that in previous two incidents, no serious altercation, if any, had actually taken lace inter se complainant and accused named in the FIR, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of bail.

There is another glaring aspect to the matter. As per complainant, he, before giving telephonic call to his friend Yuvraj, had actually given three telephonic calls to Police, but there is nothing to substantiate such fact, rather, as per own case of Police, they received telephonic information with regard to incident at 2:18 AM, that too after eight hours of the third incident.

Though case at hand would be decided by the learned trial Court in totality of evidence led on record by prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioners incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when they have already suffered for more than two and a half months. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his or her guilt is not proven in accordance with law. Since guilt of the petitioners is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence, there appears to be no justification to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioners for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice can be best met by putting them to stringent conditions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- each with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

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 the present petitions alone. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of.

The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.