Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Inder Dev – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in case FIR No. 239 of 2021, dated 26.8.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3 (2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC&ST Act).
2. Status report stands filed. Record was also made available.
3. Present application is third application filed by the petitioner in this Court.
4. Petitioner in the year 2022 had approached Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., by filing Bail Application No.129 of 2022 for enlarging him on bail. The said application was dismissed by Special Judge, Kullu, vide order dated 26.07.2022.
5. Thereafter petitioner had preferred Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2054 of 2022 in this High Court by raising various pleas including the plea raised in present petition, except the plea related to delay in trial. All issues were considere
The court ruled that the presence of the petitioner in CCTV footage and witness statements constituted a prima facie case, justifying the denial of bail.
The court ruled that strong evidence existed against the accused for serious crimes, and health concerns and trial delays did not justify bail.
The judgment establishes that a person may act in self-defense when faced with an imminent threat, and the absence of mens rea is crucial in determining the appropriate charges under IPC.
The court denied bail based on prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in serious crimes, emphasizing the need to uphold justice.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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....
Judicial consideration for bail revolves around the gravity of offences, evidence reliability, and potential risks of absconding, especially in serious cases like murder.
The court established that insufficient evidence linking the petitioner directly to the cause of death justified granting bail, reaffirming the principle that charges should be substantiated to uphol....
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
