Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vinay Sharma – 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. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC&ST Act). The FIR was lodged on distorted facts and no such incident occurred. The police arrested seven persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla and he is in judicial custody in District Jail, Shimla (Kaithu). The police filed a charge sheet before the competent Court. The names of certain other persons were included after the investigation. The newly added persons applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to the role attributed to the persons enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Su
The court ruled that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient for conviction, and the petitioner is entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused granted bail.
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.
Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections ba....
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....
Bail denied in murder case as driving co-accused to scene and fleeing infers common intention under Section 34 IPC despite no overt act, given offence gravity and punishment severity.
Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail princip....
In double murder cases punishable by death, bail denied where prima facie circumstantial evidence establishes involvement, despite trial delay, emphasizing gravity of offence and punishment severity.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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
