Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Shankar Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner(s) have filed the present petition(s) for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in FIR No. 56/2024 dated 01.04.2024 registered at Police Station West District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). The petitioners are innocent and they have nothing to do with the commission of crime. They were falsely implicated by the mother of Tikam Chand. The charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Co-accused had got pre-arrest bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one co-accused Vinay Sharma got bail from this Court. The petitioners belong to a respectable family. They have roots in the society. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. They do not have any criminal antecedents. The trial has not commenced and there is a violation of the right of speedy
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the absence of specific evidence against the accused, while considering the principle of parity in bail decisions.
The court ruled that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient for conviction, and the petitioner is entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused granted bail.
The court ruled that bail should be denied due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents and involvement in the crime, emphasizing the need for public safety.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail princip....
In double murder cases punishable by death, bail denied where prima facie circumstantial evidence establishes involvement, despite trial delay, emphasizing gravity of offence and punishment severity.
Bail denied in murder case as driving co-accused to scene and fleeing infers common intention under Section 34 IPC despite no overt act, given offence gravity and punishment severity.
Bail denied in murder case due to prima facie aggressor role evidenced by eyewitness, CCTV, blood-stained exhibits; criminal antecedents; witness tampering risk from prior enmity; trial delay not out....
Bail denied in murder case due to prima facie evidence, gravity of offence, and severe punishment despite trial progress arguments.
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
