Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Harikesh Meena – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. anticipatory bail sought in abetment to suicide fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. no proximate act or evidence for abetment charge. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. parity with co-accused granted supreme court bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. mental torture by superiors alleged as suicide cause. (Para 11) |
| 5. investigation reveals harassment, overwork, and coercion evidence. (Para 12) |
| 6. custodial interrogation needed due to influence risk. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. similar allegations as co-accused; weak suicide link. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. abetment requires direct, proximate incitement to suicide. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. bail stage avoids mini-trial; prima facie assessment only. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. interim bail made absolute with conditions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge.
Applicant-Harikesh Meena, apprehending his arrest in case FIR No. 9 of 2025, dated 19th March, 2025, registered with Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 108 and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’), has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to
Anticipatory bail granted in abetment of suicide case: mere workplace harassment without proximate incitement insufficient; parity with co-accused; no mini-trial at bail stage despite ongoing investi....
The court ruled that anticipatory bail is not warranted due to serious allegations of mental harassment and the risk of tampering with evidence and witnesses.
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear evidence of instigation or active facilitation to establish guilt in cases of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Abatement of Suicide - Rejection of bail - Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. If the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or c....
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the sufficiency of evidence against the applicant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following due process of law, including custodial interrogation, and the rejection of bail applications due to the abuse of the l....
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair investigation and found insufficient evidence to deny bail, allowing the petitioner to be released under specific conditions.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over 4 years with trial delay and co-accused on bail violates right to speedy trial under Article 21, obligating courts to grant bail unless risks justify continued cust....
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
