Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Neha Kumari – 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 vide FIR No. 11 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused Som Chand had given beatings to Bhura Ram and the informant Kalawati. Bhura Ram developed pain in his stomach. He was taken to the Medical College, Nahan and PGI Chandigarh. He died on 15.2.2025 in his home. The petitioner is a woman. She has two children aged 4 and 6 years. Her parents-in-law are aged 72 and 75 years, and are unable to take care of the minors. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family. She has roots in the society. She is 28 years old. She 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 informant made a complaint to the police stating that he had gone to his field on 22.1.2025 at about 5.30 PM. Som
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted for serious offences, especially those punishable by capital punishment, and that shared liability exists when co-accused act in concert.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
Bail may be granted to women accused of serious offences under special provisions, considering individual circumstances and the nature of allegations.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
The court ruled that the seriousness of the charge under Section 302, supported by incriminating evidence, justifies denial of bail, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring justice and community safety....
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
The court established that the evidence did not support a murder charge under Section 302 IPC, indicating a potential culpable homicide, thus granting bail based on the circumstances of the case.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
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.
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
