Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
S – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 57 of 2024, dated 07.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 49 and 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Khudiyan, District Kangra, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 08.10.2024. The charge-sheet was filed on 20.02.2025. The charges were framed on 28.05.2025. The prosecution cited 35 witnesses in the original charge-sheet and 13 witnesses in the supplementary charge-sheet. The victim was examined, and the matter was listed on 19.12.2025 before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 446 of 2025. The petitioner has remained behind bars for one year and two months. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family. He is a permanent resident of the district Kangra, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the
The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.
A subsequent bail application can be granted only upon a material change in circumstances, as established by judicial precedents.
Subsequent bail after prior rejection requires substantial change in circumstances; victim's resiling post-trial not ground for bail in serious sexual offences with prima facie DNA, video evidence; s....
Subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances; otherwise, they cannot be considered.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
In sexual offence bail applications involving minors, DNA evidence excluding accused paternity, combined with prolonged detention, recorded victim testimony, and conditional safeguards against tamper....
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....
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; filing charge sheet does not qualify as such, nor does unproven trial delay. Courts must exercise restraint to uphold judicia....
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
