Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Jagdish Kumar @ Jaggu – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant-Jagdish Kumar @ Jaggu, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.101 of 2024, dated 13.12.2024, registered under Sections 74, 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), with Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case.
3. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed and the police has filed the charge- sheet and cognizance has been taken by the competent Court of law. The case is now stated to have been fixed for PWs.
4. Asserting the fact that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offences, for which he has been arrested, young age of the applicant has also been putforth, as one of the grounds for releasing him on bail.
5. The applicant had also tried his luck, by moving s
Indefinite pre-trial custody is prohibited; bail may be granted with conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent witness tampering.
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of criminal history, the victim's inconsistent testimony, and the principle against pre-trial punishment.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and ruled that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, allowing bail due to the lack of supportive evidence from the victim and her parents.
The presumption of innocence mandates that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial, and specific conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, emphasizing the need to protect societal interests and the potential flight risk of the accused.
The court denied bail based on the severity of charges against the applicant, his status as an absconder, and the potential risk of witness coercion.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
The court emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and interim bail was granted with conditions to ensure compliance and safety of the complainant.
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
