JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.14/2025 dated 13.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 103, 127(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P., applicant-Madan Lal has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P., to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR. 3. The said relief has been sought on the ground that he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. 4. It has been averred in the application that the applicant had gone to his in-laws with his family and his sister-in-law and on 12.02.2025, an argument took place and while trying to resolve the issue, one of the relatives namely Naveen Kumar gave beatings to the applicant. Thereafter, said Naveen Kumar ran away from the spot, he slipped and fell down, due to which, Naveen Kumar succumbed to injuries and subsequently, the matter was reported to the police. 5. It is the case of the applicant that he had also been beaten and has nothing to do with the incident, which led to the death of Naveen Kumar. 6. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case. 7. Vide order dated 14.02.2025, interim protection was awarded to the applicant and State was directed to file the status report and consequently, status report had been filed on 25.02.2025. 8. As per the status report, which has been filed on 25.02.2025, on 13.02.2025, SI/SHO, along with other police officials, had reached Village Batal Khurd in order to verify the facts, as entered in Rapat No.21 dated 13.02.2025. 8.1. 8. As per the status report, which has been filed on 25.02.2025, on 13.02.2025, SI/SHO, along with other police officials, had reached Village Batal Khurd in order to verify the facts, as entered in Rapat No.21 dated 13.02.2025. 8.1. Thereafter, on the spot, complainant-Rekha Devi, W/o Naveen Kumar @Binta got recorded her statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, disclosing therein that she was married to Naveen Kumar @Binta, S/o Suresh Kumar R/o Village Amb Uchhad, Tehsil Jwalamukhi District Kangra, about four years ago and they have been blessed with one daughter. 8.2. According to the complainant, on 12.02.2025, she, along with her husband Naveen Kumar, brother-in- law (devar) Bablu, had started from their home to the house of their maternal uncle (mama) Dalip Singh @Kaku, S/o Kishan Chand R/o Village Batal Khurd, as, slab was to be led and community lunch (Dham) was also there. They reached there at 11:00 am. After having their food, in the house of their maternal uncle, at about 03:00 pm, the complainant had returned back to her house with her paternal aunt (masi), whereas, Naveen Kumar @Binta, Bablu, father-in-law Suresh Kumar and mother-in-law Manorama Devi stayed in the house of maternal uncle. The in-laws of the complainant were residing in Batal Khurd for the last two months, as, her mother-in-law suffered a stroke of paralysis. Her husband and brother-in-law also stayed there. 8.3. On the same day, at about 10:15-10:30 pm, complainant’s husband Naveen Kumar informed her from his mobile No.98764-03865 that ‘Mama and Masad are beating’ and phone was disconnected. When, the complainant again called her husband and enquired as to who are beating, then, her husband disclosed that maternal uncle Kaku @Dalip Singh, Masad Madan Lal (applicant) etc. are beating and also requested her to send vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant enquired from her husband, as to who is with him, upon which, her husband has given the mobile to Simpu, son of the maternal uncle of Naveen Kumar, to whom, the complainant requested to make him sleep, so he will be alright till morning. 8.4. It is the further case of the complainant that on 13.02.2025, at about 10:00 am, father-in-law of the complainant informed her that Naveen Kumar @Binta has expired, upon which, the complainant, along with her mother, paternal aunt (Tai) and other relatives reached at the spot. 8.4. It is the further case of the complainant that on 13.02.2025, at about 10:00 am, father-in-law of the complainant informed her that Naveen Kumar @Binta has expired, upon which, the complainant, along with her mother, paternal aunt (Tai) and other relatives reached at the spot. 8.5 According to the complainant, she is sure that her husband has been killed by Kaku @Dalip Singh and Masad Madan Lal (applicant) by giving beating to him. As such, it has been prayed that action be taken against them. 8.6. Thereafter, police registered the FIR in question and police machinery swung into motion. 8.7. On 13.02.2025, team of RFSL, Dharamshala visited the spot and collected the physical evidence, which was handed over to the police. Dead body of Naveen Kumar was sent to Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, District Kangra, H.P. for conducting the post-mortem. Physical evidence, so collected/preserved by the doctors, was handed over to the police and thereafter, dead body was handed over to his family members for performing last rites. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, under Section 180 of BNSS. 8.8. Subsequently, the investigation from accused Dalip Singh @Kamaljit was conducted and Dalip Singh @Kamaljit, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were arrested on 14.02.2025 at 05:45 pm. They were also medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Khundian. Accused Dalip Singh @Kamaljit, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar have also identified the spot. Thereafter, Section 127(2) of BNS has been added, in this case. 9. On 15.02.2025, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, applicant-Madan Lal appeared before the police. On enquiry, he has disclosed that during the quarrel, Naveen Kumar had inflicted injuries on his head, upon which, he was also medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Khundian. Doctor there has advised him to get NCCT Head and ENT, upon which, the test was got conducted from Civil Hospital at Palampur. 10. In the status report, it has been mentioned that applicant-Madan Lal, on enquiry, has disclosed the factual position. However, the said revelation does not have any bearing upon the case. It has been apprehended that investigation is going on and in case, the relief, as claimed, is granted to the applicant, he may coerce the witnesses. 11. In the supplementary status report, filed on 04.03.2025, similar apprehensions have been expressed. 12. However, the said revelation does not have any bearing upon the case. It has been apprehended that investigation is going on and in case, the relief, as claimed, is granted to the applicant, he may coerce the witnesses. 11. In the supplementary status report, filed on 04.03.2025, similar apprehensions have been expressed. 12. In the supplementary status report, which has been filed on 11.03.2025, it has been apprehended that the applicant has committed very heinous and serious offence, in connivance with his co-accused, namely Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Dalip Singh @Kamaljit and there is lot of resentment in the society. 13. Supplementary status report has been filed on 02.04.2025, according to which, on 27.03.2025, applicant- Madan Lal has joined the investigation and produced prescription slip, bearing CR No.921202500017900 dated 13.03.2025, issued by the Civil Hospital, Jwalamukhi and also produced Non-Contrast CT Head report dated 13.03.2025, conducted by Dhiman Diagnostic & Consultation Center Kathog, Jwalamukhi. The doctor of Dhiman Diagnostic & Consultation Center Kathog, Jwalamukhi has mentioned the following facts in the report:- “It is submitted that duration of said fracture cannot be ascertained as in case of skull fracture, Radiographic resolution (means sign of healing of fracture) occur many months after the injury and so it is not possible to give duration of injury in this case.” 14. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present application. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent, in this case, has highlighted the facts, which the applicant has revealed to the police during the investigation, but, learned Additional Advocate General could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as to how, the alleged revelation, made by the applicant, during the investigation, can be taken into consideration. 16. Although, a valuable life has been lost, but, it does not mean that the person, who has been named as accused, in this case, is not entitled for any relief, as, general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. 17. Moreover, in none of the status reports, the specific role, allegedly attributed by the applicant, has been mentioned. 18. 16. Although, a valuable life has been lost, but, it does not mean that the person, who has been named as accused, in this case, is not entitled for any relief, as, general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. 17. Moreover, in none of the status reports, the specific role, allegedly attributed by the applicant, has been mentioned. 18. No doubt, in the statement, under Section 173 of BNSS, name of applicant has been mentioned as the person, who has allegedly beaten Naveen Kumar and the said alleged fact was disclosed to the complainant by her husband, who has lost his life due to the alleged beatings, given to him, by the accused persons. However, it would be proved during the trial that the said disclosure, allegedly made by the husband to the complainant, would fall in any of the proceed of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. Furthermore, at the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about merits of the case and the evidence, so collected by the prosecution, should be avoided, as, it would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the case of the accused (applicant). 20. Considering all these facts, when, the police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation of the applicant, mainly on the ground that a person has lost his life, the same is too short to decline the relief to the applicant, as prayed for. 21. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 14.02.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, the interim order, dated 14.02.2025, is made absolute, by virtue of which, the applicant was ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to the condition that the applicant will abide by the conditions, as enumerated in para No.8(ii) to 8(xi) of the said order. 22. 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. 23. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 24. 22. 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. 23. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 24. 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 violated by the applicant. 25. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.