Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Som Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail, in FIR No. 11 of 2025 dated 23.01.2025 registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 117(2), 126(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023. Since both the petitions have arisen out of the same FIR; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Bhura Ram was going to his fields on 22.01.2025 at about 5:30 PM. The petitioner, Som Chand, nephew of Bhura Ram, started abusing him and his wife, Kalavati, without any reason. Bhura Ram objected, after which the petitioners, Som Chand and Neha, gave him beatings. The matter was reported to the police, who registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The injured person was taken to the hospital. He was treated at PGI Chandigarh till 06.02.2025 and was brought home as per the doctors' advice. However, his condition deteriorated, and he died on 15.02.2025 at Nahan hospital. The police arrested the petitioners. The police completed the investigat
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
In serious charges like murder, bail cannot be granted based on trial delays; the nature of the offence dictates the court's discretion over bail.
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....
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
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.
The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.
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
