Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Salman – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. robbery conspiracy evidenced by recoveries, cctv, cdr. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue bail on evidence, risk, precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. bail parameters weigh offence gravity, evidence, tampering risk. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. prima facie involvement, heinous offence bar bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. no trial delay; precedents inapplicable to bail. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. bail petition dismissed; observations limited. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 54 of 2025, dated 11.5.2025, registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 309 (6), 333, 127(2), 351, 115(2), 61(2), 24 (a) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Shahid, Sartaj and Javed entered informant Naresh Kumar’s house and committed robbery by pointing a knife at his wife. They looted Rs. 80,000-90,000/- along with jewellery. The petitioner was part of the conspiracy, which was hatched on 10.5.2025 in the residence of co-accused
Bail denied in heinous robbery conspiracy case due to prima facie involvement via stolen property possession, firearms recovery, and mobile location data, given offence severity punishable by life im....
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.
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 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....
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.
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.
Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail princip....
The court ruled that bail should be denied due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents and involvement in the crime, emphasizing the need for public safety.
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
