The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that shooting a person under the impression that it is a wild animal amounts to death by negligence and not murder.

The Court was dealing with the bail application of a man who accidentally shot another man under the mistaken belief that he was hunting a bird in the forest.

The Court noted that the accused did not possess the required intention to commit an offence under section 103 of BNS but was only negligent in his actions, attracting liability under section 106 instead.

[Bhutto Ram v State of H.P.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted an accused in a bribery case, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted currency from a person is not conclusive proof of guilt.

The court noted that for a conviction, the prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of a bribe as illegal gratification.

In this case, the prosecution's evidence failed to show that the accused demanded or received money, failing to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court.

The court reinforces the legal principle that possession alone, without proof of demand, is inadequate for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

[State of H.P. v Hari Saran]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police (SSP), Shimla, and the Home Secretary to file a status report detailing all sealed roads meant for pedestrian use. 

A bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma expressed concern that vehicles were blocking pedestrian pathways, leading to garbage piling up and unhygienic conditions.

The Court observed that Shimla is “losing its charm” and compared the situation to Mussoorie, where traffic is seen even on sealed roads, while also criticising the Municipal Corporation for failing to act. 

The matter will be heard next on October 10, 2025.

[Sambhav Bhasin v State of H.P. & Ors.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that human teeth cannot be considered as 'deadly weapons' under the provision for voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons (Section 324 IPC).

The Court was hearing a case where a woman and her child were attacked by a man inside their house in March, 2007.

While the Trial and Sessions Courts convicted the accused, the High Court noted that the subordinate Courts had erred in convicting the accused under Section 324 but upheld the conviction under other relevant provisions.

The Court also held that a house is the castle of a person and breaking into it, in the middle of the night, is a grave offence.

[Khelo Ram v State of H.P.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds the acquittal of a man accused of rape, noting that love letters written by the complainant to the accused are clear reflections of her feelings.

The Division Bench observes that the letters indicate a consensual relationship between the two. It rules that the prosecution failed to establish charges of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dismissing the appeal against acquittal, the court affirms the trial court’s findings and concludes that no interference is warranted.

[State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that commercial suits filed without undergoing mandatory pre-institution mediation must be rejected unless genuine urgency exists.

The Court observed that the plaintiff cannot bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, without demonstrating urgent relief necessity.

The plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit over the "Glucon-D" and "Glucon-C" marks. 

The Court found the plaintiff was aware of the alleged infringement since April 2023 but failed to demonstrate urgency when filing suit in 2025. The Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for bypassing the statutory mediation requirement.

[Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied bail to an accused in a POCSO Act case, rejecting the defence’s argument that the victim’s Aadhaar card showed her as a major.

The court emphasised that Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of age under the POCSO Act, which prioritises the victim’s welfare and mandates strict scrutiny of age claims.

Medical and school records indicated the victim was a minor at the time of the offence. 

The court thus rejected an accused's regular bail plea, who is facing charges of offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

[Rishi Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a person cannot be held liable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for forest encroachment unless there is a duly published notification declaring the land as a reserved forest.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the chargesheet against the petitioner made no such mention.

Upholding the trial court’s order discharging the accused, the Court stressed that the essential ingredients of trespass were also missing. 

Relying on State of H.P. v. Ami Chand (1992), the Court dismissed the state’s petition, reiterating that liability arises only with proper notification.

[State of H.P. v Ghambo Devi]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a street vendor accused of sharing an AI-generated image of PM Modi captioned “Pakistan Zindabad” on Facebook.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla ruled that merely praising another country without inciting rebellion or violence does not amount to sedition.

The Court noted the petitioner’s claim that his son created the social media account and falsely implicated him due to a personal dispute.

The Court also observed no evidence of discontent towards the government or necessity for custody. It held that detaining the petitioner would serve no purpose and granted bail.

[Suleman v State of H.P]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the non-production of a seal used in forensic testing does not automatically vitiate a trial if other evidence proves the prosecution’s case.

The police found a spherical substance wrapped in khaki tape while patrolling at night in a village in Himachal Pradesh. On opening it, the police found it to contain heroin.

The defence argued the missing seal undermined credibility, but the Court clarified that what matters is proof of the sample’s integrity. Procedural lapses, it added, cannot outweigh substantive evidence unless they cause prejudice to the accused.

[Digvijay Singh v State of H.P.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court declared that contractual employees cannot be denied maternity leave, quashing a state government order that cancelled such benefits.

The verdict came in response to a petition by an Anganwadi worker whose leave was revoked. The Court directed the State to reinstate her benefits and ensure compliance with labour laws. 

The Court noted that the maternity leave of the petitioner began while she was working on a contract basis, but before her maternity leave of 180 days could be availed by her, the department regularised her services.

Thus, the Court set aside the order of the department and directed the State to release all the due amounts to the petitioner.

[Kamini Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that merely taking a woman’s photograph does not automatically amount to stalking under Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 

The observation came while quashing a stalking case against a man accused of photographing a woman without consent.

The Court eventually allowed the plea after noting that the offence of stalking did not appear to be made out against the petitioner, and that there was no need for custodial interrogation in this case.

[Krishan Kumar Kasana v State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused bail to an accused in a ₹500-crore cryptocurrency fraud, stressing that large-scale economic crimes involving deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously.

Justice Sushil Kukreja held that prolonged custody alone is not a ground for bail where public interest is at stake. 

The Court noted over 80,000 investors suffered massive losses, with the petitioner, a close associate of the main accused and a key promoter. 

Allegations include running Ponzi-style crypto schemes via multiple websites. Bail was denied despite nearly 21 months in custody. 

[Abhishek Sharma v State of H.P. & Ors.]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to try a 16-year-old as an adult for allegedly raping a 7-year-old girl.

A medical board assessed the boy’s IQ at 92 and found he understood the nature and consequences of his actions, including threatening the victim. 

The court decided that the Juvenile Justice Act's three-month preliminary assessment period delays are directory rather than mandatory, which means the assessment is still valid.

Thus, the referral to the Children's Court by the Juvenile Justice Board is valid.