Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Ramesh Chander Jaswal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant claims innocence, alibi via cctv, no role. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. prosecution details incident, eyewitness implicating applicant. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court assesses involvement, gravity, alibi for bail denial. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. bail dismissed; observations confined to bail stage. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Ramesh Chander Jaswal has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No.187 of 2024, dated 23.12.2024, registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 190, 191(3), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case.
3. According to the applicant, he has no concern, whatsoever, with the crime in question. Presently, applicant is stated to be in judicial custody. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed a
Bail denied in double murder case due to offence gravity, prima facie involvement per eyewitness and CCTV, alibi for trial, and tampering risks before complainant examination.
Bail denied in double homicide case due to applicant's continuous involvement from scuffle to identifying victims for shooter, corroborated by eyewitness and CCTV, offence gravity, and tampering risk....
A suspect may be granted bail if there is no substantial evidence of guilt or risks associated with evidence tampering; pre-trial detention is prohibited without significant justification.
Bail granted in death case despite CCTV involvement from inception, as no specific role attributed, investigation complete, most witnesses examined, parity with co-accused, deep roots, with condition....
Violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-applicant guaranteed under Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Bail granted in culpable homicide case from scuffle-induced fatal fall, due to advanced trial (40/43 witnesses examined), co-accused parity, no specific role, societal roots, completed investigation.
Bail denied in heinous murder case involving body disposal and evidence destruction due to applicant's significant role, abnormal post-incident behaviour, prior dismissals without changed circumstanc....
The court reinforced the right to bail and emphasized that pre-trial detention should not serve as punishment when evidence against the accused is insufficient.
The heinousness of the offense, evidence available on record, and the accused-applicants' criminal history were central to the court's decision in rejecting the bail applications.
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
