1 2026:HHC:2309 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMP (M) No. : 2920 of 2025

Reserved on : 05.01.2026

Decided on : 08.01.2026

Dalip Kumar …Applicant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the applicant : Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate

(through video conferencing),

with Ms. Sakshi Sharma,

Advocate.

For the respondent :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.

H.S. Rawat, Additional

Advocates General, with Ms.

Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit

Sharma, Deputy Advocates

General, assisted by SI Inder

Singh, Police Station Palampur,

District Kangra, H.P., for the

respondent-State.

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior

Advocate, with Ms. Swati

Sharma, Advocate, for the

complainant.

1

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2026:HHC:2309 

Virender Singh, Judge.

Applicant-Dalip Kumar has filed the present

application, under Section 483 read with Section 487 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter

referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking, his release on bail, during

the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 146 of 2025,

dated 22

nd

September, 2025, registered under Sections

109 (1), 351 (1) and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), with

Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and

has falsely been implicated, in this case, at the instance of

the complainant, as well as, the police of Police Station,

Palampur.

3. The applicant, in this case, is stated to be

arrested on 24

th

September, 2025 and is presently in

judicial custody.

4. As per the case of the applicant, the

investigation, in the present case, is completed, as the

police has filed the challan, on 1

st

December, 2025, in the

3 2026:HHC:2309 

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Palampur.

5. According to the applicant, his co-accused,

Vinod, has already been granted bail, by the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District

Kangra, on 12

th

November, 2025.

6. The relief of bail has also been sought on the

ground that the alleged incident had taken place on 22

nd

September, 2025, at 03.30 pm, whereas, the matter was

reported to the police on the same day, at about 07.14 pm

and according to the learned counsel appearing for the

applicant, the delay of about four hours, in reporting the

matter, is nothing, but, deliberations made by the

complainant, to falsely implicate the applicant, in this

case.

7. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by

moving similar bail application, before this Court, bearing

CrMP (M) No. 2399 of 2025, which was dismissed as

withdrawn, on 13

th

October, 2025. Thereafter, the

applicant has filed application for bail, before the Court of

4 2026:HHC:2309 

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, which was

dismissed on 3

rd

December, 2025.

8. The applicant has also given the details of the

criminal cases, which have already been registered against

him, in para 21 of the application, which are being

reproduced, as under:

(i) Case No. 239/15 dated 26.12.2015, u/s

447, 379, 341 IC, Police Station Palampur;

(ii) Case No. 14/17, dated 17.01.2017, u/s

447, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station Palampur;

(iii) Case No. 24/17, dated 12.05.2017, u/s

447, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station Palampur;

(iv) Case No. 55/21, dated 14.09.2021, u/s

451, 448, 506, 34 IPC;

(v) Case No. 74/21, dated 24.11.2021, u/s

452, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC;

(vi) Case No. 195/22, dated 13.05.2022, u/s

174A IPC, Police Station Sec.7, Panchkula,

Haryana;

(vii) Case No. 36/22, dated 03.03.2022, u/s

420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station

Palampur;

(viii) Case No. 72/24, dated 12.08.2024, u/s

126 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 324 (B) BNS; and

(ix) Case No. 17/25, dated 03.03.2025, u/s

332 (c), 351 (2), 352, 324 (4), 355 BNS.

9. Apart from this, the applicant, through his

counsel, has also given certain undertakings, for which, he

5 2026:HHC:2309 

is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail,

during the pendency of the trial.

10. On all these submissions, Mr. Vikas Padora and

Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the

applicant, have prayed that the bail application may kindly

be allowed.

11. When put to notice, the police has filed the

status report, disclosing therein, that on 22

nd

September,

2025, Shavir Chand Katoch (complainant), alongwith his

father, appeared before the police and submitted the

complaint, mentioning therein that he is resident of the

address, as mentioned in the complaint and an Advocate,

by profession. According to him, presently, he is pursuing

four cases, as Advocate, against Dalip Kumar (applicant),

out of which, in one case, titled as Amit Hardware versus

Dalip Kumar, which is a cheque bounce case, the learned

Court has convicted him and due to this fact, said Dalip

Kumar (applicant) nourished a grudge against him.

11.1. As per the complainant, on 22

nd

September,

2025, at about 3.30 p.m., after having his lunch, the

complainant was going back to Court and when, reached

6 2026:HHC:2309 

near Court premises, then, Dalip (applicant), who was

perhaps waiting for him, in vehicle No. HP 53B 0006, on

seeing him, with an intention to kill him, tried to crush

him, under the vehicle. He drove his vehicle towards right

side of the road, where the complainant was present. On

seeing him, the complainant, who was on his scooty, drove

the scooty on the kacha portion of the road, otherwise, he

would have been crushed to death by the applicant.

11.2. As per the further version of the complainant,

the vehicles coming from Nehru Chowk side have also been

damaged by the applicant. When, the complainant

inquired from the applicant as to why he wanted to crush

him, then, another person, who was sitting in the vehicle

(who could be identified by the complainant, on seeing

him), uttered that you escaped today, but, in case, you

meet us on road again, we will finish you. Applicant-Dalip

Kumar caught hold the collar of the complainant and said

that how much amount you need, as, lawyers, like you, are

being sold in ten-ten thousand rupees.

11.3. Thereafter, the complainant made a call to the

police, however, till the time, police reached there, the elder

7 2026:HHC:2309 

brother of the applicant reached there, who caused injury

on the cheek of his (complainant’s) father and made

applicant to flee from there. When, the applicant and his

brother were going down from the stairs in Pragti Maidan,

then, the applicant fell down. While fleeing away from the

spot, the applicant has left his vehicle, at the spot.

11.4. According to the complainant, while leaving the

spot, both the brothers had threatened the complainant to

finish him.

11.5. On the basis of the above facts, an

apprehension has been expressed by the complainant that

in future, both these persons, by offering money to

someone, may get him and his father killed. As such, he

has prayed that action be taken against the accused

persons.

11.6. Lastly, the complainant has got recorded that

he does not want to get himself medically examined.

12. On the basis of the above facts, the police

registered FIR, under Sections 109 (1), 351 (1) and 3 (5) of

the BNS and criminal machinery swung into motion.

8 2026:HHC:2309 

12.1. During the investigation, efforts were made to

arrest the applicant and his co-accused, but, they were not

found. On 23

rd

September, 2025, in the midnight, at about

01.00 am., a telephonic information was received from

Fortis Hospital, Mohali, that the applicant, as per CR No.

14097673, has been admitted there, due to the injuries

sustained by him, in a road side accident, upon which,

Rapat No. 5 was registered and according to the police, it

seems that the applicant, after committing the crime, in

order to save himself, had got himself admitted in Fortis

Hospital, Mohali, Chandigarh.

12.2. As per the police report, on 23

rd

September,

2025, the spot was visited, at the instance of the

complainant and spot map was prepared. The

complainant produced the shirt, which, he allegedly was

wearing, at the time of incident, and the same was taken

into possession. The statements of the witnesses were

recorded, under Section 180 of the BNSS

12.3. On 24

th

September, 2025, the applicant was

arrested, at about 11.30 am. He was got medico-legally

examined. According to the police, from the interrogation

9 2026:HHC:2309 

of the applicant, the name of his co-accused Vinod Kumar

was surfaced. Thereafter, accused-Vinod Kumar was also

arrested.

12.4. During investigation, it has been found that

nine criminal cases, the details of which have been

mentioned by the applicant, in the application and have

been reproduced hereinabove, have been registered against

the applicant, under the various provisions of IPC.

12.5. On the basis of the above facts, it is the case of

the police that the applicant is a person of criminal nature

and is in the habit of violating the law. According to the

police, due to the act of the applicant, there is a lot of

resentment, in the society.

12.6. It is the further case of the police that accused-

Vinod Kumar moved application, under Section 306 CrPC

(Section 343 of the BNSS), before the police, which was

addressed to the learned CJM, Kangra at Dharamshala,

according to which, he intended to be the witness, in this

case, against the applicant.

13. On all these submissions, it has been argued by

Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General,

10 2026:HHC:2309 

that the applicant, after hatching a conspiracy, with his co-

accused, tried to crush the person, who is appearing as an

Advocate, against him.

14. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the bail application, since, the

applicant has committed a heinous offence, against a

person, who is pursuing his noble profession of advocacy.

15. In addition to this, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant, has

vehemently argued that the crime, which the applicant has

committed, is not against an individual, but, against the

entire legal fraternity and in case, bail is granted to such a

person, it would give a wrong message to the society and

will also encourage the persons, who are having any

grudge against the Advocates, to take law, in their own

hands.

16. Not only this, according to the learned Senior

Counsel, releasing the applicant on bail, will also create a

sense of fear among the Advocate fraternity, who are

representing the cases against or in favour of the dreaded

criminals day in and day out.

11 2026:HHC:2309 

17. Lastly, referring to the contents of FIR No. 72,

dated 12

th

August, 2024, a copy of which has been

produced by him, in the open Court, it has been argued

that the applicant is in the habit of committing such

crimes, as, in the said FIR, he has hit a vehicle No. HP 37A

9850, without any reason or rhyme.

18. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the

bail application.

19. Record perused.

20. The investigation, in this case, is complete, as

the charge sheet has been filed by the police, in the

Competent Court of law. Meaning thereby, the custodial

interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the

police.

21. At the time of deciding the bail application, this

Court should not dwell deep into the merits of the case to

ascertain the guilt/innocence of the accused, as, it is the

prerogative of the learned trial Court, to determine the

same, on the basis of the evidence, so adduced before it,

during the trial.

12 2026:HHC:2309 

22. So far as the criminal history of the applicant,

which has been reproduced above, is concerned, in none of

the cases, the applicant has been convicted by the

Competent Court of law nor any effort has been made by

the police to get the bail cancelled, in those cases, by

moving appropriate application(s). Merely, on account of

pendency of the criminal cases against the applicant,

adverse inference cannot be drawn against him.

23. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident

of District Kangra, as such, it cannot be apprehended that

in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he

may not be available for the trial.

24. So far as the other apprehensions are

concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions

can be imposed, in case, the relief of bail is granted to the

applicant.

25. The role allegedly played by the applicant, in the

commission of the alleged offences, will be proved during

the course of the trial, and, the bail application cannot be

rejected as a matter of punishment, as, rejection of the bail

13 2026:HHC:2309 

application will amount to pre-trial punishment, which is

prohibited under the law.

26. Even otherwise, the applicant is in judicial

custody, which is suggestive of the fact that his custodial

interrogation is not required by the police. As such, no

useful purpose would be served by keeping him in

judicial custody for indefinite period, as the chances of

commencement and conclusion of the trial, against the

applicant, in near future, are not so bright.

27. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the

view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is

accordingly allowed.

28. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be

released on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising

out of FIR No. 146 of 2025, dated 22

nd

September,

2025, registered under Sections 109 (1), 351 (1) and 3

(5) of the BNS, with Police Station Palampur, District

Kangra, H.P., on his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of

50,000/-, with

₹

two sureties of the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court. This order, however,

shall be subject to the following conditions:

14 2026:HHC:2309 

a) That the applicant shall 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;

b) That the applicant shall not tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor hamper the

investigation of the case in any manner

whatsoever;

c) That the applicant shall not make any

inducement, threat or promises to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade them from disclosing such facts to

the Court or the Police Officer; and

d) That the applicant shall not leave the

territory of India without the prior permission

of the Court;

29. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the

merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,

only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.

30. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at

liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of

the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.

31. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of

the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail,

Dharamshala, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the

date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

15 2026:HHC:2309 

32. In case, the applicant is not released within a

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the

Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Dharamshala, is

directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kangra.

The Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Dharamshala, is

further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the

bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a

period of one month from today, then, the said fact be

submitted to this Court.

33. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.

( Virender Singh )

Judge

January 08, 2026

( rajni )