Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ravinder Kumar Singh – 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 FIR No. 54 of 2022, dated 11.6.2022, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than two years and five months. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 16.4.2025 and 17.4.2025. The prosecution has examined three witnesses out of 63 witnesses cited by it. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. There is nothing on record to show the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner has deep roots in the society, and he is not likely to abscond. 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 were informed that Baba Shiv Narayan Puri was not picking up his mobile. The police searched for him but could not trace him. Subsequ
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the crime and the petitioner's responsibility for trial delays, emphasizing the need for justice and the accused's presence.
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.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
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 the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of insufficient evidence.
The court emphasized that bail in heinous offences against minors is not granted lightly, considering the nature of the crime and the right to a speedy trial.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
The court emphasized that bail is denied based on the seriousness of the charges, evidence of involvement, and the need to protect witness safety.
The court emphasized that the heinous nature of the crime and the evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
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
