Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Pankaj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the petition for bail and accusations made. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's deliberation of arguments and evidence presented. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's claims of innocence vs. evidence from the respondent. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principles governing bail as established by precedents. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. assessment of evidence and determination of bail denial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision regarding the bail petition. (Para 16 , 17) |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 16 of 2026, dated 21.2.2026, registered at Police Station Ani, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 351(2) and 62 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.2.2026. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. The informant’s daughter was residing at Shimla and was in a relationship with the petitioner for about three years. The informant did not approve the relationship between his daughter and the petitioner. He lodged a false FIR to get rid of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody.
The court ruled that severity of the charges and substantial evidence against the petitioner justified denial of bail, emphasizing the need to safeguard the judicial process. Evidence indicated likel....
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 emphasized that the severity of the crime and potential interference with the investigation justify the denial of bail, aligning individual liberty with societal safety.
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....
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like rape, highlighting the severity of the charge, nature of evidence, and potential for witness tampering as critical considerati....
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 attempt to murder via hammer blow to head causing fracture; gravity of offence, severe punishment (life imprisonment), and witness tampering risk paramount despite no blood on weapon.
Bail denied in murder case due to prima facie aggressor role evidenced by eyewitness, CCTV, blood-stained exhibits; criminal antecedents; witness tampering risk from prior enmity; trial delay not out....
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
