Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. By way of the present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), applicant-Sachin has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.02 of 2024, dated 01.01.2024, registered under Sections 306, 384, 201 and 34 of theIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated and arrested, in this case.
3. As per the applicant, he has no concern whatsoever with the crime, as alleged against him.
4. It has been averred in the application that the applicant was arrested, in this case, on 10.01.2025 and since, then, he is in judicial custody. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to be completed and according to the applicant, nothing is to be recovered from him or at his instance.
5. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. However, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 01.04.2025.
6. Le
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
The court established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
The presumption of innocence mandates that an accused cannot be held in custody indefinitely without evidence, and bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
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.
Pre-trial custody is prohibited as punishment; bail may be granted if investigation is complete and no purpose is served by continued detention.
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 granted bail based on the completion of investigation, lack of evidence for custodial interrogation, and absence of convictions in previous cases.
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
