Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Shoyeb Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge.
Applicant-Shoyeb Ahmed has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking, his release on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No. 90 of 2024, dated 6th June, 2024, registered with Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 363 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the above- noted FIR, as, the child victim herself wishes to marry him and due to the discord between the families, the present case has been registered against him.
3. The applicant is stated to have been arrested, in this case, on 14th June, 2024, and, since then, he is stated to have been lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan.
4. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and charge sheet has been filed in the Competent Court of Law.
5. The applicant has earlier moved CrMP (M) No. 2729 of 2024, before this Cou
The presumption of innocence mandates that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial, and specific conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and ruled that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, allowing bail due to the lack of supportive evidence from the victim and her parents.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of criminal history, the victim's inconsistent testimony, and the principle against pre-trial punishment.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the court must prioritize societal safety over individual liberty when considering bail applications.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, emphasizing the need to protect societal interests and the potential flight risk of the accused.
The court denied bail based on the severity of charges against the applicant, his status as an absconder, and the potential risk of witness coercion.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The court emphasized that in serious offences, bail should be denied to prevent potential witness tampering and to uphold societal norms, particularly when prima facie guilt is established.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
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
