Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harsh Dhiman – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the bail petition and incident (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition's status report detailing the incident (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments for and against bail (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's considerations and observations on bail precedents (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. established principles governing grant of bail (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's final decision on the bail petition (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 112 of 2023, dated 17.12.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner Harsh had inflicted an injury on the head of the informant’s father on 17.12.2023 at about 10-11 am with an iron rod. The informant intervened, and the petitioner inflicted an injury on him as well. The victim died on 03.03.2024, and Section 302 of the IPC was added. The petitioner is innocent and has no concern with the commission of crime. The incident occurred in the courtyard of the petitioner’
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....
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.
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....
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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 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 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.
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
