Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla granted bail in a case concerning the death of a person during a hunting incident. The Court held that an accidental shooting of a person mistaken for a wild animal amounts to death caused by negligence under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and not murder under Section 103. It noted that the allegations also attracted Section 238 BNS and provisions of the Arms Act, which are bailable, and therefore directed release on bail with stringent conditions to secure attendance at trial and prevent interference with evidence.

The petitioner, Bhutto Ram, sought regular bail in FIR No. 23 of 2025, registered on 24 January 2025 at Police Station Sadar Solan. The FIR pertained to the alleged disappearance and subsequent death of one Som Dutt alias Sonu, reported missing on 21 January 2025. The police, upon initiating investigation, found that the deceased had ventured into the forest with a gun belonging to his neighbour. The petitioner and another individual, identified as Sandeep Kumar alias Ajay Kumar alias Aju, were also seen heading towards the forest armed with guns.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Touching Private Parts of Minor Not Rape | Offence Is Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO and Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC

During the investigation, Ajay Kumar disclosed a cave where the severed head of the deceased was allegedly hidden, and further identified the place where the body had been burnt. The authorities recovered a partially burnt decapitated body and seized firearms, including an SBBL, allegedly produced by the co-accused. The post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to haemorrhage and shock secondary to ante-mortem multiple penetrating gunshot wounds to the chest and head region caused by a smooth weapon. It further recorded post-mortem decapitation.

The prosecution contended that the petitioner, posted as a pump operator in a forest pump house, accompanied Sandeep to hunt wild animals. Mistaking the deceased, who had concealed himself in the bushes, for a wild fowl, Sandeep fired at him, resulting in death. Thereafter, the petitioner and co-accused allegedly decapitated the head, attempted to burn the body and the head separately, and concealed them.

The police filed the charge sheet on 20 April 2025, followed by a supplementary charge sheet on 1 June 2025, citing thirty-eight witnesses. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and that no incriminating material such as blood stains or recovered weapons were linked to him. The defence further stated that the prosecution itself admitted the act was committed under a mistaken belief, placing it within the ambit of Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable, rather than Section 103. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was the sole earning member of his family and pledged adherence to any conditions imposed by the Court.

The State opposed the bail petition, citing the gruesome nature of the offence, the concealment of evidence, and the involvement of the petitioner alongside the co-accused. It urged the Court to deny the concession of bail.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla carefully considered the submissions and noted the parameters for granting bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974. The Court recorded: “While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.”

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s caution in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479: “A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths.”

Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court noted the prosecution’s own assertion that the co-accused shot at the bushes under the mistaken belief of targeting a wild fowl. Justice Kainthla observed: “Thus, they did not intend to cause the death of Som Dutt and cannot be prima facie held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, but would be liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS, which is bailable in nature.”

The Court also considered the post-mortem finding that decapitation was post-mortem, and the filing of charge-sheet for Section 238 BNS. On this, it was stated: “The legislature, in its wisdom, has made this offence bailable, even if an attempt is made to destroy the evidence in an offence punishable with capital punishment. Therefore, there is a force in the submission … that the gruesome nature of the act and disapproval of the Court will have to give way to the wisdom of the legislature, which decided to make it bailable.”

Concluding, Justice Kainthla held: “Thus, prima facie, there is insufficient material to conclude that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence justifying his further detention.”

Allowing the petition, the Court ordered: “The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.”

“The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. 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.”

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court | Fair Compensation Under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act Must Extend to All Affected Landowners, Including Those Who Did Not Approach Court

“The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and 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 number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.”

“It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s Kshitij Sharma, Prashant Sharma and Shobhit Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Case Title: Bhutto Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:32543
Case Number: Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1933 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla