Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Bhutto Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of alleged hunting mishap and concealment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. supreme court parameters for bail grant. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on offence nature and bail denial. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. mistaken shooting not culpable homicide as murder. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. post-mortem mutilation bailable under section 238 bns. (Para 15) |
| 6. bail granted for bailable offences prima facie. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.23/2025, dated 24.01.2025, registered at Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 238 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the deceased Som Dutt alias Sonu was found missing on 21.01.2025. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. They found that Sonu, Bhutto (petitioner) and Ajay had gone to the forest carrying guns. Subsequently, Sonu’s dead body was found. The police arrested the petitioner on 24.01.2025. The police filed the charge-
Mistaken shooting of concealed human for wild fowl during hunting is culpable homicide not murder per BNS Section 100 illustration (c); post-mortem body mutilation bailable under Section 238; gruesom....
Bail granted as mistaken shooting of hidden person for wild fowl during hunt not murder but bailable rash act; post-mortem body tampering bailable; licensed gun no Arms Act violation.
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 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 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....
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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.
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....
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.
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
