MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail to Proclaimed Offender Citing 'Obstruction of Fair Trial' and Risk of Absconding"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, has denied regular bail to a petitioner who was declared a proclaimed offender twice, emphasizing the crucial need for the accused's presence to ensure a fair trial.

The case, heard on November 7, involved the petitioner seeking regular bail after being accused of attempting to crush an informant under a truck and absconding during the trial. The court observed, "The primary object of criminal procedure is to ensure a fair trial of accused persons" and highlighted that the conduct of the accused, in this case, posed a risk of obstructing the trial's progress.

Justice Kainthla, in his judgment, cited several Supreme Court precedents, underlining the discretionary nature of bail and the necessity of exercising this discretion judiciously. The court noted, "There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, and the nature of evidence against the accused are important considerations."

The court further added that the petitioner's history of absconding and failure to cooperate with the legal process played a significant role in the decision. "The plea that there was a miscommunication from the counsel cannot be accepted because the declaration of proclaimed offender means that first the summons was issued, thereafter the warrants were issued and the proclamation was affixed on the homestead," Justice Kainthla stated.

The decision has been marked as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Rajul Chauhan, and the state's representation, Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, presented their arguments, but the court ultimately dismissed the bail application, stating that the observations made are solely for the disposal of this petition and do not affect the merits of the case.

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not an absolute right and depends significantly on the conduct of the accused and the nature of the charges against them. The court's decision is seen as a step towards upholding the sanctity of the judicial process and ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and without undue hindrance.

Decided on : 07-11-2023

KARAMVEER  Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Latest Legal News