Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Saurabh Patial @ Fandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 58/2025, dated 14.03.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated based on prior enmity with the injured. As per the prosecution, the injured and his son had hired the shooters to kill the petitioner. They shot at the petitioner, and he suffered a bullet injury. An FIR No. 160 of 2024 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. Subsequently, the informant was also injured in a shootout. 7-8 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner because of the enmity and political rivalry. The police arrested the petitioner based on the surmises. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed tha
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....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
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....
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....
Bail should not be denied based on inadmissible evidence; the evaluation of admissible evidence is paramount in bail considerations.
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....
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 co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
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
