Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Gursewak – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 CC
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
