Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
MRIDUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks bail for alleged offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court evaluates evidence linking petitioner to crime. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. bail considerations based on severity of accusations. (Para 8 , 9 , 18) |
| 5. court dismisses petition, denies bail. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 112 of 2024 dated 27.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a young person aged 19 years belonging to a respectable family. He was falsely implicated without any evidence. The investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. F.I.R. No. 111 of 2024, dated 26.10.2024, was registered against the petitioner arising out of the same incident, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, at Rampur Bushahr. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court and no fruitful purpose
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....
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.
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.
The court ruled that the seriousness of the charge under Section 302, supported by incriminating evidence, justifies denial of bail, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring justice and community safety....
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....
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.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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
