Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rakesh Kumar – 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 on 15.1.2022, vide FIR No. 139 of 2021, dated 31.12.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. The police have filed the charge sheet and the custodial interrogation of thepetitioner is not required. The petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. 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 police received information from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Padhar, on 31.12.2021 that one person was brought in an injured condition to the hospital. The police went to verify the information. The informant made a statement that he had gone to the house of Neelma Devi on 31.12.2021. The petitioner had also visited her home. The informant, Neelma Devi and the petitioner consumed liquor. They had some arguments. The informant left for his home at
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.
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.
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.
Bail cannot be granted based on discrepancies in witness statements once the trial has commenced; substantial change in circumstances is required for reconsideration.
A fresh bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances since the previous denial; adjournments sought by the petitioner do not justify bail.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
The filing of a charge sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances for granting bail; prior denials remain unless substantial changes are demonstrated.
The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.
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
