Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Mangal Bahadur - Petitioner
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2600 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Key Points: - The court held that the seriousness of the murder charge under Section 302 and the corroborating evidence justify denial of bail (!) (!) (!) . - Arguments that delay in trial entitles the accused to bail were rejected on the basis that incarceration alone does not warrant bail in murder cases (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation about his mother’s death shifted the burden of proof onto him, supporting denial of bail (!) (!) (!) . - DNA evidence recovered from the petitioner’s clothes and the weapon linking him to the victim was deemed admissible and persuasive for denial of bail (!) (!) . - Counsel for the petitioner sought bail on grounds of innocence and procedural delays, but the court found these unconvincing given the gravity of the offence (!) (!) . - The court applied the principle that bail is a discretionary order and must consider factors such as nature of the charge, evidence, gravity of punishment, risk of absconding, danger to justice, which were all weighed against granting bail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Even though there was no likelihood of absconding, the court held that the severity of the offence outweighed this factor, leading to denial of bail (!) (!) . - The final judgment dismissed the bail petition and maintained the petitioner in custody pending trial (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's bail application based on lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition's assertions regarding evidence and circumstances. (Para 3) |
| 3. defense claims innocence, prosecution emphasizes evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial discretion and principles for granting bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. seriousness of charges impacts bail determination. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. trial delays do not automatically grant bail in murder cases. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. final order denying bail. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 153 of 2023, dated 08.11.2023, registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner’s mother, Maya Devi (since deceased), was found dead on 08.11.2023 in a house where she and the petitioner were residing together. Maya Devi had sustained injuries on her right arm by means of a sharp object. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner was sleeping in his room when the incident occurred. The petitioner had cordial relations with his mother, and he had no reason to murder his mother. The police have filed a charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Chamba, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Taragad, Sikandar Singh, informed the police about the death of Maya Devi. The police went to the spot and recorded the statement of the informant Kul Bahadur, who stated that Maya Devi is his wife and the petitioner Mangal Bahadur is his son. All of them resided together. The petitioner, Mangal Bahadur’s wife was residing separately because he used to quarrel with her. Mangal Bahadur was not doing any work and used to demand money from Maya Devi, which led to frequent quarrels. The informant used to sleep in a goat pen with his goats to protect them from wild animals. Mangal Bahadur and Maya Devi used to sleep in the house. Mangal Bahadur had consumed liquor and was quarrelling with his mother, Maya Devi, on the previous night of the incident. Maya Devi did not bring the tea as usual to the informant on the date of the incident. The informant went to the house and found that Maya Devi was lying near the door, and Mangal Bahadur was washing the floor. The right arm of Maya Devi was bleeding because of the injury caused by sharp edged weapon. The informant asked Mangal Bahadur as to what had happened, and Mangal Bahadur evaded the question. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The police seized the petitioner’s clothes and Khukhri lying on the spot. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted, and as per the final report, the death occurred because of the injuries caused by Khukhari. The blood samples and other objects were sent to the FSL, and as per the report of analysis, the shirt, T- shirt, Khukhari and the shirt of the deceased contained the DNA of the deceased. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. The statements of 14 witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed on 25.11.2025. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr Udit Shaurya Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
5. Mr Udit Shaurya Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present
The court ruled that the seriousness of the charge under Section 302, supported by incriminating evidence, justifies denial of bail, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring justice and community safety....
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....
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.
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.
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.
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....
Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
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
