Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Virender Singh, J
Pankaj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Pankaj Kumar, 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, in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’), with Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and has nothing to do with the alleged offence.
3. The applicant has termed the entire case of the prosecution, as concocted one and without any substance, as, nothing has been recovered from him.
4. As per the applicant, the investigation in the present case is almost complete and nothing is to be recovered from him, as such, no useful purposed would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody.
5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application before Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2025.
6. On the basis of the
The court established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
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 bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of pre-trial punishment; conditions for bail must ensure attendance and integrity of the trial process.
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.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail should not be denied if custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
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
