Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Jagdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested vide FIR No. 175 of 2024, dated 28.7.2024, at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 249 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita , 2023. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is pending for committal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The statements of the witnesses Aditya @ Kanu and Vinod Kumar, recorded under Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhta, show that a concocted version was presented before the Court. The investigation is biased. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the incident. The injured was admitted to a private hospital, and FIRs have been registered against the hospital for illegal activities. The informant party got a forged report prepared from the hospital. No independent witness was associated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be relea
The filing of a charge sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances for granting bail; prior denials remain unless substantial changes are demonstrated.
Bail cannot be granted based on discrepancies in witness statements once the trial has commenced; substantial change in circumstances is required for reconsideration.
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 applications in serious offences require substantial change in circumstances since prior rejections, considering the nature of accusations and risk factors.
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; filing charge sheet does not qualify as such, nor does unproven trial delay. Courts must exercise restraint to uphold judicia....
The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the absence of specific evidence against the accused, while considering the principle of parity in bail decisions.
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
