Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J
Jagdish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Jagdish Kumar, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ' BNS S '), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.127 of 2024, dated 16.07.2024, registered, under Sections 103(1) , 115(2) and 332 (C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’), with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated and has wrongly been arrested, in the present case.
3. As per the applicant, all the allegations, which have been levelled in the FIR, are totally false and concocted, whereas, the real fact, according to the applicant, is that he is having a shop adjoining to the Karyana shop of the deceased at Galu Chowk. Adjoining to the said shops, a common toilet of the petitioner and deceased is there. When the applicant came out of the toilet, after responding the call of nature, son of the deceased came near him and claimed his ownership on the said toilet and hot exchange took place between them.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that thereaft
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; pre-trial detention is prohibited when investigation is complete and medical evidence suggests death was not caused by the accused's actions.
The court established that pre-trial detention is prohibited, emphasizing the need for bail when the trial is unlikely to commence soon and conditions are imposed to ensure compliance.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
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 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 cannot be denied as punishment; completion of investigation and similar treatment of co-accused warrant granting bail with conditions.
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 bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
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
