Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Balwinder Singh @ Ballu – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant claims false implication, seeks bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. vehicle blast reported; case initially untraced. (Para 8) |
| 3. bail denied for gravity, tampering risks. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Balwinder Singh @ Ballu, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of FIR No. 35/2022, dated 29.01.2022, registered with Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 435, 427, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as he has no concern whatsoever, with the crime in question and even during the investigation, the police could not collect any evidence, connecting the applicant, with the crime in question.
3. As per the applicant, he has been arrested, in this case, merely on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement, recorded before police at P
Bail denied due to offence seriousness involving explosives, criminal antecedents, risks of evidence tampering and public safety threats; merits not evaluated deeply at bail stage to avoid prejudice.
Bail granted in mob violence and police assault case amid communal tensions on grounds of trial pendency, presumption of innocence, parity with co-accused, completed investigation, clean antecedents,....
Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case where applicant linked solely by co-accused's inadmissible disclosure statement under CrPC s.162 and Evidence Act s.25; CDRs' evidentiary value deferred ....
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 NDPS case for non-commercial quantity contraband; presumption of innocence upheld despite prior FIRs without conviction; parity with co-accused; no pre-trial punishment post charge-sh....
The court ruled that involvement of an accused must be substantiated by adequate evidence, and statements by co-accused cannot solely establish guilt under the NDPS Act.
Co-accused's police custody disclosures inadmissible against applicant in NDPS cases; mere call detail records between co-villagers insufficient to deny bail; parity with released co-accused entitles....
The court ruled that statements made under police influence are inadmissible against co-accused in NDPS cases, allowing bail due to lack of prima facie evidence.
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.
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
