Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hunting incident: mistaken shooting, body mutilation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 24.01.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan, District Solan (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), and 238 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2025. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The matter is listed for consideration on charge on 10.10.2025. The prosecution has cited 38 witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. As per the prosecution, the deceased, Som Dutt alias Sonu, was found missing on 21.01.2025. The police found after the investigation that Sonu, Bhutto and Sandeep Kumar @ Ajay (the present petitioner) had gone to the forest carrying guns. Subsequently, Sonu’s dead body was found. The police arrested the petitioner on 24.01.2025. The grounds of arrest were not supplied to the pe
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.
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....
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 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....
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 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 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.
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
