Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

"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

Similar News