Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Vijay Sandhu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioner-Vijay Sandhu has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Una, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Cr.MA No.968 of 2024, titled as Vijay Sandhu versus State, which has been filed in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. versus Rasila Ram & others.
2. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under:
2.1. On the statement of one Tirth Ram, son of late Shri Fedu Ram, which has been recorded, under Section 154 of Cr.PC, police of Police Station, Bangana, registered FIR No.74 of 2022, dated 18.09.2022, under Sections 306, 34 of IPC against respondents No.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred as the accused). Thereafter, the investigation was conducted against them.
2.2. During investigation, the accused persons had preferred the bail application, before the learned trial Court and on 01.10.2022, the learned trial Court has granted the bail to the
High standards for proof required to cancel bail, focusing on direct relevance to bail conditions.
Cancellation of bail requires specific and substantiated allegations of misconduct; vague claims are insufficient to meet the legal threshold.
A court must cancel bail based on verified evidence of intimidation, not mere allegations, to uphold the presumption of innocence.
Cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence; allegations without corroboration do not justify revocation of bail.
Bail should not be cancelled without clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty, as established by the court's analysis.
Superior court interferes with bail grant only if order arbitrary, perverse or ignores material like offence gravity; distinct from cancellation for supervening circumstances.
Bail may be canceled when an accused violates conditions, especially if such violations threaten the integrity of a fair trial, as established by precedents.
Bail cancellation requires evidence of supervening circumstances or misuse like witness threats; absent proof, bail not cancelled. Informant's demand for money to compromise constitutes interference ....
Cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient.
Violation of bail conditions, as evidenced by the accused's actions, warrants cancellation of the bail order.
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
