Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harsh Dhiman – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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’s house in Khasra No. 597, which belongs to the petitioner’s father. The informant party attacked the petitioner and her mother in their house. The petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2024. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner’s father suffered a brain haemorrhage leading to paralysis on 17.02.2024. The petitioner wants to continu
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
