Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dine Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 223 of 2023, dated 5.9.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner's marriage was solemnised with his wife for more than 17 years ago. Petitioner’s wife had gone to her parental home with her children on 4.9.2023. The petitioner went to bring them back but he was beaten in the house of his parents-in-law on 05.09.2023. The informant party is the aggressor. The petitioner has been in custody for more than one year and three months. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tehsil Bali Chowki. He has deep roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. The injuries sustained by the victim are not dangerous to life. Hence, the petition.
2. A status report has been filed by the State asserting that the informant Heema Devi is the petitioner’s mother-in- law. Her daughter,
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.
Subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances; otherwise, they cannot be considered.
Bail applications in serious offences require substantial change in circumstances since prior rejections, considering the nature of accusations and risk factors.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; mere claims of delay in trial do not suffice if the trial is progressing normally.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
Bail cannot be granted based on discrepancies in witness statements once the trial has commenced; substantial change in circumstances is required for reconsideration.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections ba....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
