Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kamil Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 35 of 2026, dated 25.02.2026, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P.
2. Since both the bail petitions have arisen out of the same F.I.R., hence, they are being taken up together for disposal.
3. It has been asserted that the informant Surender Kumar, Forest Guard, reported the recovery of freshly cut logs of wood at Jamni Khad, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. The police arrested Lekh Raj, who was granted regular bail by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. on 03.03.2026. The petitioners apprehend their arrest. They are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence connecting the petitioners to the commission of crime. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Lekh Raj, recorded during the police custody. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars b
Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases, considering serious allegations, potential for witness tampering, and necessity for custodial interrogation.
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....
Bail granted in non-grave forest offences after charge-sheet and 5 months custody, despite prima facie evidence and antecedents, as pre-trial detention not punitive and no further purpose served.
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.
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.
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....
The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, considering the broad parameters mandated by law.
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
