Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Shubham – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Shubham has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS S ’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No.112 of 2024, dated 22.11.2024, registered under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), with Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested by the Police, in this case.
3. The applicant has asserted the fact that the entire investigation of the Police is stated to be soiled with malice and with sole motive to implicate the applicant.
4. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and except the present case, no other case is stated to have been registered against the applicant.
5. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving the bail application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Solan, howev
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.
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 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.
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
The court emphasized that bail cannot be granted in serious offenses under POCSO without compelling evidence, affirming the trial court's exclusive role in evaluating guilt.
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.
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 ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
The presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
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
