Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Anuj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged harassment leading to wife's suicide by poison. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on innocence, parity, prior rejection. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. subsequent bail requires material change in circumstances. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. no evidence appreciation or trial delay at bail stage. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. petition dismissed for lack of changed circumstances. (Para 22) |
Anuj Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
For the Respondent/State: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The co-accused Lal Chand and Veena Devi have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba (learned Trial Court) and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses, and this violates the petitio
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
