Pushpa Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Pushpa Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Suman Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General
For the complainant:Mr Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr R.R. Rahi, Advocate

Table of Content
1. pre-arrest bail petition in bns/sc/st offences. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on section 18 bar to anticipatory bail. (Para 3 , 4)
3. prima facie sc/st offence from caste-based confinement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. anticipatory bail barred unless no prima facie sc/st case. (Para 8 , 9)
5. caste-motivated acts establish sc/st offence; bail denied. (Para 10 , 11)
6. petition dismissed; observations limited to maintainability. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 90/2025, dated 20.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 107 , 127(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS).

2. The police filed the status report asserting that Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) were also added after the registration of F.I.R.

3. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that Section 438 of Cr. P.C. is excluded by Section 18 of the SC & ST Act, and th