Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Lovkesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hammer assault on victim after sand transport refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims false implication; state stresses heinous offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. bail guided by offence nature, evidence, tampering risk. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. head hammer injury prima facie attempt to murder. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. severe punishment for attempt to murder bars bail. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. bail petition dismissed; observations limited to disposal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 91 of 2025, dated 11.7.2025, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 126(2), 115(2) and 117(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim had parked his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-54C-0421 near his house on 11.7.2025. The accused asked the informant and the victim to transport the sand, but they declined. The accused threatened to damage the windscreen with the hammer if the sand was not transported. The victim tried to stop the accused, but the accused
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.
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....
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 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 the severity of the crime and potential interference with the investigation justify the denial of bail, aligning individual liberty with societal safety.
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....
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....
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....
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
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
