Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Gurvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 356-D and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), vide FIR No. 267 of 2016, dated 23.8.2016 registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. The police filed the charge sheet. The petitioner was released on bail. He could not appear during the trial as he was suffering from a serious ailment. The co-accused has been acquitted. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police asserting that she came in contact with Sagir Ali. He proposed to marry the victim. He called the victim on 21.9.2015 and demanded Rs.7.00 lacs to settle the case filed against him. The victim transferred Rs.1,70,000/- as per the directions of Sagir Ali. Sagir Ali visited the victim on 18.10.2015 and took Rs.1,30,000/- from her. He married the
Absconding from trial proceedings compromises the fairness of the trial, justifying the denial of bail in serious offences.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the accused's community ties and the nature of the allegations, not solely on the seriousness of the charges.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate serious allegations, and the accused's rights must be balanced with the need for justice.
Discrepancies in a victim's statements do not justify bail in serious offences like rape once the trial has commenced, reflecting the need to ensure trial integrity.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and inordinate delays can justify bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
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
