Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Gursewak - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 364 of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 326(g) and 238 - Petition for regular bail - Petitioner arrested for allegedly setting a shop on fire due to business rivalry; investigation complete and charge sheet filed - No fruitful purpose in further detention as trial has not commenced. (Paras 1, 4, 14)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - Court must consider nature of accusations, gravity of offence, role of accused, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses - Insufficient material to connect petitioner with crime; identification doubtful. (Paras 7, 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 9.10.2024 after being accused of setting a shop on fire, with no solid evidence linking him to the crime and the trial not yet commenced. (Paras 1, 14)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to connect the petitioner to the crime and that continued custody would serve no purpose. (Paras 12, 14)
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner and the appropriateness of granting bail. (Paras 12, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of evidence and the nature of the accusations warranted bail, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions to secure the accused's presence during trial. (Paras 14, 18)
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 244 of 2024, dated 04.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326(g) and 238 of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The investigation is complete. The charge sheet has been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner was arrested on 9.10.2024. The trial has not commenced yet. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information on 4.10.2024 that a shop was on fire at Sabji Mandi. The police went to the spot where the informant, Santosh Gupta, made a statement that he was running a Footwear shop at Baddi. He had received information at 4:30 am that his shop was on fire. The shop contained articles worth Rs. 3-4 lakhs. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police checked the CCTV footage and found that one person went towards the spot at 1:32 am. He had put something on the camera to obstruct its view. The connecting wire of the other CCTV camera was cut. The substance used to obstruct the CCTV view fell, and the person’s hand became visible. The person was identified as Gursewak, the present petitioner. The CCTV footage from the house of Satish Kumar was also taken in possession. It was found after the investigation that the petitioner was running a shop adjacent to the informant’s shop. The petitioner had put the informant’s shop on fire due to the business rivalry. The articles and the CCTV footage were sent to FSL, and the person in the CCTV footage was identified as the present petitioner. The sacred threads on his hand were also matched with the sacred threads in the petitioner’s photograph. The challan was prepared and filed before the Court; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner’s identification is not proper. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.10.2024. The charge sheet is pending before learned Additional CJM, Nalagarh. The trial is not likely to commence soon. The petitioner’s custody is not required and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had put the shop of the informant on fire due to the business rivalry. The trial has not yet commenced and the petitioner can influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: -
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnes
The court emphasized that insufficient evidence and the nature of the accusations justified granting bail, with conditions to ensure the accused's presence during trial.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate serious allegations, and the accused's rights must be balanced with the need for justice.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the accused's community ties and the nature of the allegations, not solely on the seriousness of the charges.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the nature of accusations, the gravity of the offence, and the risk of witness tampering, while ensuring conditions facilitate justice.
The court established that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply for intermediate quantities, allowing bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and reasonable conditions to ....
The court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
The court established that the evidence did not support a murder charge under Section 302 IPC, indicating a potential culpable homicide, thus granting bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious criminal cases where there is a risk of witness intimidation and ongoing prosecution, as established in relevant Supreme Court precedents.
The court ruled that severity of the charges and substantial evidence against the petitioner justified denial of bail, emphasizing the need to safeguard the judicial process. Evidence indicated likel....
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
