Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Sukhminder Singh @ Sukhwinder @ Sonu Pehalwan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) in case FIR No. 87 of 2024, dated 25.9.2024, registered under Sections 109 (1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 238, 115(2) & 117(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS”) and Section 25-54-1959 of the Arms Act , with Police Station, Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
3. According to him, he is respectable person and has no concern, whatsoever, with the case registered against him.
4. According to the applicant, investigation in the present case, is complete and nothing has to be recovered from him or at his instance.
5. In addition to this, the applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court, in case ordered to be released on bail.
6. Applicant has tried his luck by moving bail application, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., however, the same was dismissed on 27.3.2025.
7. On
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
The presumption of innocence mandates that an accused cannot be held in custody indefinitely without evidence, and bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; pre-trial detention is prohibited when investigation is complete and medical evidence suggests death was not caused by the accused's actions.
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
