Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Yudh Chand Bains – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Since all the bail applications emanate out of a common F.I.R., hence the same are taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the Police have registered an F.I.R. No. 2 of 2025, dated 8.01.2025, at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB), Una, H.P for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13 (1) (a)& (2) of Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 2018. The petitioners apprehend that the Police would arrest them in connection with the aforesaid FIR. The prosecution story is false and the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case. They belong to respectable family and their reputation would be harmed by their arrest and detention in custody. They have roots in the society and there is no likelihood of their absconding. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petitions.
3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that a complaint was received from the Secretary (Cooperation) to
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in economic offences should be granted sparingly, considering the gravity of accusations and the potential for tampering with evidence.
Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in cases of economic offences due to their potential to undermine public interest and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Bail in economic offences should be denied to protect the larger public and state interest and prevent tampering with witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the gravity of the offence is an aspect to be kept in view by the Court. The c....
The judgment emphasized the seriousness of economic offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the balance between individual rights and public interest in granting anticipatory bail.
The delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, and the larger interest of the public are crucial factors in determining bail applications for serious economic offences.
Economic Offence - Refusal to grant pre-arrest bail - Petitioner has made out no case for his release on pre-arrest bail, more particularly when present is prima-facie not a case where allegations br....
Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely in serious economic offences involving large-scale fraud, as custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly, especially in economic offences where custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.
Offence of money-laundering - Anticipatory bail rejected - Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, Court mu....
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
