HP High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Accidentally Shooting Another Person, Mistaking Him For A Wild Animal : Himachal Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla granted bail to the prime co-accused in a case involving the accidental shooting of a man who was mistaken for a wild animal during a hunting incident. The Court clarified that such an act constitutes causing death by negligence under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, rather than murder under Section 103. Observing that the investigation was complete, the firearm used was licensed, and the alleged offences were bailable, the Court directed the petitioner’s release on bail subject to prescribed conditions.
The case originated from an FIR lodged on January 24, 2025, following the death of one Som Dutt alias Sonu in the forests of Solan District. The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, along with one Bhutto, was accused of causing Som Dutt’s death by gunshot. The prosecution alleged that on January 21, 2025, the deceased, carrying a licensed gun belonging to his neighbour, went to the forest and did not return. His mobile phone was later found switched off. During investigation, police concluded that the petitioner and co-accused had accompanied the deceased to the forest, also armed with guns.
The petitioner was arrested on January 24, 2025. The status report filed by the prosecution claimed that during interrogation, the petitioner disclosed the location of a cave where the body had been partially burnt and the head severed. The police recovered an SBBL gun, a weapon concealed in cow dung, and identified spots where the remains of the body and head were allegedly burnt and buried. The post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was “haemorrhage and shock secondary to ante-mortem multiple penetrating gunshot wounds to the chest and head region,” confirming post-mortem decapitation.
The petitioner maintained that the death was accidental and that he was being falsely implicated. He submitted that the deceased had been armed and intoxicated, and that there were no direct witnesses. His counsel argued that the circumstances suggested an accidental shooting, contending that the case did not meet the ingredients of Section 103 of the BNS or Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, opposed the bail, characterizing the alleged acts as “diabolical, reprehensible and gruesome,” citing the decapitation and burning of the body as aggravating factors. It argued that the petitioner’s release would send the wrong message given the severity of the crime.
Justice Kainthla, after hearing both sides, noted that the charge sheet had already been filed, with 38 witnesses cited by the prosecution, and that the trial would likely take considerable time. The matter was listed for consideration on charge on October 10, 2025.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the bail application in light of established Supreme Court precedents, including Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025) 7 SCC 314, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P. (1978) 1 SCC 240, and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280. The Court referred to the governing principles for bail determination, quoting 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, also bears upon the issue.”
The judgment cited Prahlad Singh Bhati to note that “while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.”
Referring to these guiding parameters, Justice Kainthla recorded that the petitioner’s case did not disclose any deliberate or intentional act of murder. The Court observed that according to the prosecution itself, the petitioner had fired towards bushes under the belief that a wild fowl was concealed there, not realizing that the deceased was behind them.
The Court reproduced illustration (c) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 100 of the BNS: “A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A, not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.”
Justice Kainthla drew from the framers’ commentary in the 1837 Indian Law Commissioners’ Report, noting that punishing an unintentional act that yields unforeseen consequences would be “barbarous and absurd.” The Court stated, “When a person engaged in the commission of an offence causes death by rashness, or negligence, but without either intending to cause death, or thinking it likely that he shall cause death, we propose that he shall be liable to the punishment of the offence which he was engaged in committing.”
Applying these principles, the Court found that “the petitioner 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 BNS, which is bailable in nature.”
On the charge of destruction of evidence under Section 238 of the BNS, the Court observed that although the petitioner and co-accused attempted to destroy evidence by decapitating and burning the body, “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.” Justice Kainthla remarked 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.”
Regarding the Arms Act charges, the Court found that the petitioner’s gun was licensed and thus Sections 25 and 27 were not applicable. Citing Surinder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh) (2021) 20 SCC 24, the Court reiterated, “Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.”
Based on these findings, Justice Kainthla held that there was “insufficient material to conclude that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence justifying his further detention.”
The High Court allowed the bail petition and ordered Sandeep Kumar’s release on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The order directed that while on bail, the petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses, influence evidence, or seek unnecessary adjournments. He must attend each hearing, not leave his address for more than seven days without prior intimation to the police and court, and surrender his passport.
The Court further ordered that the petitioner furnish his mobile number and social media contact details to the investigating agency and the trial court, with any changes to be reported within five days. It was specified 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.”
The Court directed copies of the order to be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Solan, and the Trial Court through the FASTER system for compliance. The order concluded with a caution that “the observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: M/s Ajay Sipahiya, Pankaj Chauhan, and Tarun Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:33766
Case Number: Cr. MP (M) No. 2280 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
