Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Manpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Hp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 82 of 2025, dated 2.11.2025, registered at Police Station, Mehatpur, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 140 (1), 115(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrayed as accused based on the complaint made by one Shubham Raijada. The police arrested one Ashutosh, and he was released on bail. Anmol Singh Rana was arrested on 17.12.2025, and he was also released on bail. The petitioners are also entitled to bail based on parity. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Bail is a rule, and Jail is an exception. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
3. The petitions are opposed by filing status reports asserting that the victim, Shubham Raijada, was called to his shop. He was taken from the shop in a vehicle by two people at gunpoint. He was beaten in a
Pre-arrest bail denied in serious offences of abduction, assault and robbery where petitioners named by co-accused, custodial interrogation needed for ongoing investigation with recoveries pending, a....
Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases, considering serious allegations, potential for witness tampering, and necessity for custodial interrogation.
Pre-arrest bail was denied due to serious charges against the petitioners and sufficient prima facie evidence necessitating their arrest to ensure a fair investigation.
Under UA(P) Act Section 43D(5), bail denied if charge-sheet shows prima facie true accusations of terrorist gang involvement; custody/delay insufficient absent changed circumstances; parity only for ....
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in cases of economic offences due to their potential to undermine public interest and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Lack of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime justifies granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438, ensuring individual liberty is protected against unwarranted arrest.
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
