JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant Sant Prakash, aged 49 years, who is in judicial custody, in connection with FIR No. 313 of 2023, dated 12.12.2023, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC”) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered with Police Station, Tahliwal, Una, H.P. has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’). 2. By way of the present application, he has sought indulgence of this Court to release him on bail, during pendency of the trial. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case and no legal evidence could be collected by the prosecution to connect him, with the alleged offence. 4. Apart from this, he has also given his ill health, as one of the grounds to release him on bail, by pleading that he is suffering from spinal problem and the Doctor has advised him to take home remedies, painkillers and physio-therapy. The Doctor is also stated to have advised that in case, the proper precaution is not taken, the problem may aggravate. Due to said problem, he allegedly could not follow daily pursuits. In this regard, he has also pleaded that the Doctor of Regional Hospital, Una, on 20.12.2023, had advised him for MRI. In the city scan of the Cervical Spine, the Doctor has observed as under: “(i) Loss of Cervical lordiosis which is ; “a condition where neck’s natural curve is loss or reversed”, due to which he had sensation of pins and needles in his hands and continuous headaches. (ii) In the city scan dated 03.01.2024 it was observed; mild anterior wedging of vertebra noted at L-3, L-5 level, which is a condition of vertebral compression fracture that occurs when the front of the vertebra collapsed. (iii) It was further observed that there is a condition of early degenerative condition in the dorsolumber spine. Though, this condition is usually seen in aged person but in exceptional circumstances can also be caused by tumors, infections and traumatic injury which is the case herein.” 5. According to the applicant, thereafter, the he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on 27.2.2024, and the Doctor gave a comprehensive opinion stating the above-mentioned diagnosis and issues reiterating its affects. Though, this condition is usually seen in aged person but in exceptional circumstances can also be caused by tumors, infections and traumatic injury which is the case herein.” 5. According to the applicant, thereafter, the he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on 27.2.2024, and the Doctor gave a comprehensive opinion stating the above-mentioned diagnosis and issues reiterating its affects. The applicant had also remained hospitalized, in Regional Hospital, Una, w.e.f. 20.9.2024 to 3.10.2024. Thereafter, the Doctor has allegedly advised the applicant the physio-therapy, for about25 days, at PGI, Chandigarh. 6. It is the further case of the applicant that on 7.11.2024, he was medically examined at PGI, Chandigarh, where, he was advised for hospitalization and continuous physiotherapy, for six weeks. He was hospitalized there and was discharged on 11.11.2024. 7. The applicant has relied upon the advise of the Doctors at PGI, Chandigarh, according to which, he should avoid travelling and difficult postures. 8. According to the further stand of the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the matter is now pending before the learned trial Court. All these facts have been highlighted to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the Police. 9. Alongwith the application, he has also annexed the medical record. 10. The applicant had earlier tried his luck, by moving bail application No. 261 of 2024, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., which was dismissed, on 13.9.2024. 11. The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail. 12. On all these submissions, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Astha Kohli, has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed. 13. When, put to notice, Police filed status report, disclosing therein that on 12.12.2023, at about 1:20 a.m., a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Tahliwal that Sant Prakash (applicant) had shot down labourer Ghoora, upon which, Inspector Ashok Kumar, Incharge Police Post, Tahliwal, alongwith other police officials, reached at the spot, i.e. Sant Rice Mill, where they noticed the blood stains near Sheller. 13.1 In order to preserve the spot, HHC Paramjeet was deputed there. 13.1 In order to preserve the spot, HHC Paramjeet was deputed there. When, Inspector Ashok Kumar alongwith police officials was present, in the factory, then, Raj Kumar disclosed that the injured had been taken for treatment at Naya Nangal, upon which, the I.O. reached at RK Hospital, Naya Nangal, where the Doctor had declared the injured as ‘brought dead’. His dead body was stated to be lying in vehicle No. HP-10B-8896, on the side of the road. The dead body was taken into possession and the same was sent to RH, Una. 13.2 On the spot, Santosh Kumar, S/o Lala Sahu has made statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., disclosing therein that he is working in the Sant Rice Mill J.K. Food, for the last 7-8 years. As per him, at about 12:30 a.m., in midnight, when, he was present in the factory, then, he heard noise towards Sheller and when, he reached at the spot, he noticed that owner of the Sant Rice Mill and the deceased were quarreling with each other and Sant Prakash (applicant) was beating Ghoora with the fist and kick blows, alleging that he is not working properly. At that time, Ritesh Kumar, Heera Ram and Munshi Rakesh Kumar were also present. All the aforesaid persons, alongwith the complainant, were trying to save Ghoora from Sant Prakash (applicant), and, in their presence, Sant Prakash (applicant) had shot down Ghoora. In the meanwhile, labourer Raj Kumar allegedly reached at the spot. Thereafter, Sant Prakash (applicant) had gone to his room in the factory and came back alongwith keys of the vehicle. Thereafter, this witness, Rakesh Kumar and Sant Prakash (applicant) took Ghoora in the said vehicle, for treatment to the hospital. The Doctor had allegedly checked Ghoora in the car and declared him ‘brought dead’. 13.3 According to the complainant, death of Ghoora had occurred due to gun fire shot. As such, he has prayed that action be taken against applicant Sant Prakash, upon which, the Police registered a case under Section 302 IPC and Section 25-54-59 of Arms Act. 13.4 Thereafter, investigation started. During investigation, when, the I.O. reached at the spot, he came to know about the fact that accused had gone towards Naya Nangal. Consequently, I.O. alongwith labourer Raj Kumar had reached Naya Nangal. 13.4 Thereafter, investigation started. During investigation, when, the I.O. reached at the spot, he came to know about the fact that accused had gone towards Naya Nangal. Consequently, I.O. alongwith labourer Raj Kumar had reached Naya Nangal. Thereafter, the Cyber Cell was requested to ascertain the location of the mobile phone of Sant Prakash (applicant) and Rakesh Kumar. Thereafter, Medical Officer of RK Hospital handed over slip OPD No. 7284, dated 12.12.2023 to the Police, containing the following description: “Pt. Brought by Mr. Sant Prakash alongwith two persons at 01:25 am (Approx) c C/o Fall from ht 20 mins ago, Pt examined outside the hospital in the car. O/E Pt. Is uncounscious Gcs-Fz-1, V-I, M-I pupils-Dilated No reflection towards light HR-Nil, Perepheral pulses-Nil, BP & PR-Nil Brought dead.” 13.5 When, the I.O, inquired from the persons, who were present outside the hospital, then, one of the persons, disclosed his name as Sant Prakash (applicant) and when, he was inquired about the said injured person, he tried to evade the questions asked by the Police and got perplexed. He has disclosed that he had sent the injured persons, for further treatment to PGI, Chandigarh. When, the other person was inquired, about the said person, who has disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar, he also tried to evade the questions asked by the police. The third person disclosed his name as Santosh Kumar and on inquiry, he disclosed that injured Ghoora has already expired and his dead body was taken somewhere by Sant Prakash (applicant) and Rakesh Kumar, upon which, Rakesh Kumar disclosed that vehicle No. HP-10B-8896 was parked, underneath the fly over, near railway line. The vehicle was, thereafter, searched and blood stains were found in the vehicle. In the said vehicle, dead body was found, which was taken into possession. 13.6 During investigation, spot map was prepared, where dead body and the vehicle were found. The vehicle in question was also taken into possession. During investigation, record from RK Hospital was obtained and as per the record, the cause of the injury on the person of the deceased was stated to be “fall from height” by the accused persons. As such, accused persons, according to the Police has misled the Medical Officer, as well as, the Police, so that they could dispose off the body. As such, accused persons, according to the Police has misled the Medical Officer, as well as, the Police, so that they could dispose off the body. 13.7 The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted at RPGMC, Tanda, District Kangra, HP.Thereafter, blood was preserved from the spot. 13.8 During search of the residential house of the applicant Sant Prakash, a pistol of 0.32 calibre, alongwith the live cartridges, was found, which was also taken into possession. During search of his residential house, another double barrel country made pistol was found, alongwith live cartridges, which was also taken into possession. 13.9. It is further case of the Police that in the intervening night of 11-12/12/2023, a quarrel had taken place and thereafter, applicant Sant Prakash had called his Clerk/Munshi at the spot. Thereafter, he got his licensed pistol, from his residence and shot him with two gunshots, which were also found, during post-mortem examination of the dead body. 13.10 Thereafter, on the request of other labourers, applicant Sant Prakash and Rakesh Kumar, took the injured to RK Hospital, where he was declared “brought dead”. Thereafter, they took the dead body, in their vehicle, and parked the vehicle, at a distance of about 2 kms., at a secluded place. They had also misled the Police by disclosing that the injured was sent to PGI, Chandigarh, for treatment. As per the post-mortem examination, deceased was found to have consumed liquor, prior to his death. The cause of death has been mentioned as under: “The cause of death in this case in our opinion is the hemorrhagic shock due to injury to abdominal and thoracic contents as a consequence of firearm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.” 13.11 Investigation is stated to be complete and charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of CJM, Una. Thereafter, the same has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the case is now stated to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, H.P., and fixed for consideration on charge, on 8.1.2025. 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. In this case, Mr. Vijay K. Arora, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 15. In this case, Mr. Vijay K. Arora, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Astha Kohli, Advocate has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miss Marie Andre Leclerc vs. State (Delhi Administration) and others, (1984) 2 SCC 443 and decisions of this Court in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1231 of 2021, titled as, ‘Rakshak Khachi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC Online HP 8585, Cr.MP(M) No. 1604 of 2024, titled as, ‘Sukhpal Singh @ laddi vs. State’, Cr. MP(M) No. 1220 of 2024, titled as, ‘Bhavenshwari Devi vs. State of H.P., Cr. MP(M) No. 1103 of 2024, titled as, ‘Akhil Kaushal vs. State of H.P.’, and the decisions of different High Courts in Darshan vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 SCC Online Kar 599 and in Dalu vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 3870 and prayed that on the medical ground, the applicant is liable to be released on bail. 16. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miss Marie Andre Leclerc vs. State (Delhi Administration) and others, (1984) 2 SCC 443 is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the applicant in the said case was suffering from Cancer and was advised Chemotherapy, whereas, in this case, even as per the stand taken by the applicant, in the bail application, he was firstly admitted in Hospital on 20.9.2024 and was discharged on 3.10.2024. Thereafter, he remained hospitalized in PGI, Chandigarh, on 7.11.2024 and was discharged on 11.11.2024. Meaning thereby, the jail authorities are providing medical aid to the applicant, as per the advise of the Doctors. 17. It is not the case of the applicant that he has not been provided with the medical aid, as per the prescription of the Doctors, who are treating him. 18. Even otherwise, the jail authorities can be directed to provide best medical facilities to the applicant, as per the advise of the Doctors, treating him in PGI, Chandigarh, 19. So far as the decision of this Court in Cr. 18. Even otherwise, the jail authorities can be directed to provide best medical facilities to the applicant, as per the advise of the Doctors, treating him in PGI, Chandigarh, 19. So far as the decision of this Court in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 1231 of 2021, titled as, ‘Rakshak Khachi versus State of H.P., reported in 2021 SCC Online HP 8585 is concerned, the petitioner in the said case was suffering from severe depression, kidney disease, severe pain body aches, vomiting, burning, continue pain on the left side of the back and diagnosed with Pelvic Ureteric Junction Obstruction and the bail was granted on the said ground. 20. Moreover, the FIR in the said case was registered way back on 25.1.2016 and the bail application was moved in the year 2021. Even, no benefit could be derived by the applicant from the decision, as referred to above, in Cr. M.P. No. 1604 of 2024, titled as, ‘Sukhpal Singh @ laddi vs. State, as every case is to be seen, according to its facts and circumstances. 21. In case the applicant is released on bail, in this case, it will give a wrong signal to the society that a person, who had allegedly killed his labourer, on a petty matter, and thereafter, according to the status report, tried to misled the Police, is moving freely in the society. 22. It has also been argued by learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicant that in this case, there is undue delay in commencement of trial. On this ground also, relief cannot be granted to the applicant, as charge-sheet, in this case, was filed on 11.3.2024 and thereafter, the matter was pending on the ground that application for discharge moved by one of co-accused Rakesh Kumar is pending. Considering the fact that FIR in question has been registered on 12.12.2023 and the charge sheet has been filed on 11.3.2024, as such, it cannot be said that there is undue delay, in this case. 23. While deciding the question of bail, seriousness of the offence, is one of the factors, which cannot be ignored. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in totality, then, the applicant is not able to make out a case, for releasing him on bail, during pendency of the trial, at this stage, in this case. 24. Considering all these facts, the present bail application is dismissed. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in totality, then, the applicant is not able to make out a case, for releasing him on bail, during pendency of the trial, at this stage, in this case. 24. Considering all these facts, the present bail application is dismissed. 25. However, the jail authorities are directed to provide medical treatment to the applicant, as per advise of the Doctros. 26. 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 application.