2026:HHC:34451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1342 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.8.2026 Decided on: 17.8.2026 Thakur Dass …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Nishant Dabra, IO, PS Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 2led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 57 of 2026, dated 12.2.226, registered for the commission of o6ences punishable under Sections 109 and 85 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34451

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have completed the investigation and 2led the charge sheet before the Court. The deceased Neelam Thakur made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh that she had got herself burnt. The statements of the petitioner's children also show that the deceased was annoyed with her mother-in-law because of some 2nancial dispute. 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 2ling a status report asserting that the victim Neelam was married to the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born to the parties. The petitioner and his mother harassed the victim. She had made a complaint to the police, which was compromised. The victim consumed poison and set herself on 2re. She was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police seized various articles from the spot. The victim made a statement at PGI Chandigarh in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 24, 2026:HHC:34451

Chandigarh, stating that she had put herself on 2re after consuming poison. However, she had told her relatives that the petitioner had set her on 2re. These statements were video recorded. Subsequently, Neelam succumbed to her injuries, and the cause of death was septicemia due to infected burn injuries. The petitioner's mother was released after serving a notice upon her. The charge sheet was 2led before the Court, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2026 for consideration of charge. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, that she had put herself on 2re after consuming poison, which falsi2es the prosecution case that the petitioner had put herself on 2re. The police have 2led the charge sheet before the Court, and no 4 2026:HHC:34451 fruitful purpose could be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the victim told her relatives that the petitioner had put her to the 2re. She had also made complaints against the petitioner and her mother to the police, which were compromised. Prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous o6ence, and he should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 2026:HHC:34451 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 con2rmed, 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 %nd whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious o&ences 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 in'ict 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 6 2026:HHC:34451 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 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 o&ence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection 2026:HHC:34451 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 su6er 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 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 o&ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or 'eeing, if released on bail; 8 2026:HHC:34451 (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o&ence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in'uenced; 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 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 o&ence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

2026:HHC:34451 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 o6ence 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 Leeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating o6ences 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 o6ence 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….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. It is undisputed that the victim had made a statement (Annexure P-3) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, that she had set herself on 2re. Everything was 2ne in her home, and there was no diOculty. Her husband had never beaten her. She had consumed poison. She did not know why she had done so. She had no complaint against any person, and she wanted to go to her home. 10 2026:HHC:34451

12. This statement made by the victim in prima facie makes the prosecution case highly doubtful that the petitioner had put the victim on 2re or he had created such circumstances as compelled the deceased to commit suicide. 13. The police relied upon the video recording of the statement made by the victim in which she was claiming that the petitioner had put her on 2re. The authenticity of these video recordings and the interpretation placed by the police would be seen during the trial. However, when the learned Magistrate had recorded the victim's statement, in which he had exonerated the petitioner, there is insuOcient material justifying the petitioner’s further detention. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. This apprehension is not suOcient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing conditions. 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Mandi, which was not stated to be incorrect. It means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 2026:HHC:34451 16. The status report shows that the charge sheet has been 2led before the Court, which means that the petitioner's custody is not required. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.

17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he inLuence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile 12 2026:HHC:34451 number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within 2ve days from the date of the change. 18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to 2le a petition for cancellation of the bail.

19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th August, 2026 (Chander) Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR CHANDER Date: 2026.08.17 SHEKHAR 14:27:44 +0530

2026:HHC:34451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1342 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.8.2026 Decided on: 17.8.2026 Thakur Dass …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, assisted by ASI Nishant Dabra, IO, PS Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 2led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 57 of 2026, dated 12.2.226, registered for the commission of o6ences punishable under Sections 109 and 85 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), at Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34451

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have completed the investigation and 2led the charge sheet before the Court. The deceased Neelam Thakur made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh that she had got herself burnt. The statements of the petitioner's children also show that the deceased was annoyed with her mother-in-law because of some 2nancial dispute. 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 2ling a status report asserting that the victim Neelam was married to the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born to the parties. The petitioner and his mother harassed the victim. She had made a complaint to the police, which was compromised. The victim consumed poison and set herself on 2re. She was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police seized various articles from the spot. The victim made a statement at PGI Chandigarh in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 24, 2026:HHC:34451

Chandigarh, stating that she had put herself on 2re after consuming poison. However, she had told her relatives that the petitioner had set her on 2re. These statements were video recorded. Subsequently, Neelam succumbed to her injuries, and the cause of death was septicemia due to infected burn injuries. The petitioner's mother was released after serving a notice upon her. The charge sheet was 2led before the Court, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2026 for consideration of charge. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The victim made a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, that she had put herself on 2re after consuming poison, which falsi2es the prosecution case that the petitioner had put herself on 2re. The police have 2led the charge sheet before the Court, and no 4 2026:HHC:34451 fruitful purpose could be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the victim told her relatives that the petitioner had put her to the 2re. She had also made complaints against the petitioner and her mother to the police, which were compromised. Prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous o6ence, and he should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 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 2026:HHC:34451 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 con2rmed, 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 %nd whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious o&ences 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 in'ict 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 6 2026:HHC:34451 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 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 o&ence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection 2026:HHC:34451 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 su6er 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 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 o&ence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or 'eeing, if released on bail; 8 2026:HHC:34451 (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the o&ence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being in'uenced; 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 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 o&ence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied)

2026:HHC:34451 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 o6ence 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 Leeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating o6ences 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 o6ence 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….” 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. It is undisputed that the victim had made a statement (Annexure P-3) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, that she had set herself on 2re. Everything was 2ne in her home, and there was no diOculty. Her husband had never beaten her. She had consumed poison. She did not know why she had done so. She had no complaint against any person, and she wanted to go to her home. 10 2026:HHC:34451

12. This statement made by the victim in prima facie makes the prosecution case highly doubtful that the petitioner had put the victim on 2re or he had created such circumstances as compelled the deceased to commit suicide. 13. The police relied upon the video recording of the statement made by the victim in which she was claiming that the petitioner had put her on 2re. The authenticity of these video recordings and the interpretation placed by the police would be seen during the trial. However, when the learned Magistrate had recorded the victim's statement, in which he had exonerated the petitioner, there is insuOcient material justifying the petitioner’s further detention. 14. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. This apprehension is not suOcient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing conditions. 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Mandi, which was not stated to be incorrect. It means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 2026:HHC:34451 16. The status report shows that the charge sheet has been 2led before the Court, which means that the petitioner's custody is not required. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody.

17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he inLuence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile 12 2026:HHC:34451 number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within 2ve days from the date of the change. 18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to 2le a petition for cancellation of the bail.

19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th August, 2026 (Chander) Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR CHANDER Date: 2026.08.17 SHEKHAR 14:27:44 +0530