Rambir vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 August, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rambir vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 August, 2026

                                                                                     2026:HHC:32813




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                              Cr. MP(M) No. 984 of 2026
                                              Reserved on: 05.08.2026
                                              Date of Decision: 06.08.2026




                                                                                   .

    Rambir                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                            Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                                             ...Respondent




                                                    of
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
                        rt
    For the Petitioner                :         Mr Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
    For the Respondent                :         Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate

                                                General.

    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking

regular bail in FIR No.23 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025, registered for

the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and

87 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Women Police

Station, Una, District Una, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the

petitioner had taken the victim in a vehicle and left her at Ambala

Bus Stand. These allegations are false. The petitioner has

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:32813

remained behind bars since 30.06.2025 and only seven witnesses

out of eighteen have been examined. The prosecution witnesses

.

did not support the prosecution case, and the CCTV footage relied

upon by the prosecution from Ambala-Karnal Bus Stand did not

show the petitioner in it. The petitioner would abide by the terms

and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed

of
that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released

on bail.

3.
rt
The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the victim is the informant’s daughter. She was

aged 17 years. She was found missing from her home on

30.06.2025. The petitioner used to talk to the victim, and he was

also missing. The matter was reported to the police, and the police

registered the FIR. The police found that the victim had boarded a

bus bearing registration No. HR-65A-8064. The petitioner and

the victim were found in the Bus Stand Ambala between 05:18 p.m.

and 05:33 p.m. The victim was found at Bus Stand Karnal between

09:30 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. The victim is still missing. The police

filed a charge sheet before the Court. Statements of twelve

witnesses have been recorded, and the matter was listed on

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
3

2026:HHC:32813

28.07.2026 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses;

hence, the status report.

.

4. I have heard Mr Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the

of
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was

falsely implicated. As per the statements of the witnesses recorded
rt
by the Court, the face of the petitioner was not visible in the CCTV

footage and there is no material to connect the petitioner to the

commission of the crime. The prosecution has failed to complete

the evidence, despite the lapse of nearly one year, which violates

the petitioner’s right to speedy trial. Therefore, he prayed that the

present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner had taken

the victim to Ambala Bus Stand and was seen with her between

5:18 and 5:33 p.m. The victim boarded the bus bearing registration

No. HR-65A-8064. She was found at Karnal between 09:23 pm

and 12:00 a.m., and her whereabouts are not known. The

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
4

2026:HHC:32813

Court should not appreciate the evidence while deciding the bail

petition. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be

.

dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by

of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC

314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

rt

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1
SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while
elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under

trial, has laid down the key factors that should be
considered while granting bail, which are extracted as
under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also

pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.

8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant
jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being.

[Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England”

(Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern
Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
5

2026:HHC:32813

witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is
applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record,

.

particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to

commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
habituals, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the

opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in

of
irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied)

57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
rt
with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted
as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the

nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the

accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused

at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and
similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind

that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has
used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead
of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there
is a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied)

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
6

2026:HHC:32813

58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In

.

highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of

course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

“3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for
bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.

of
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to
case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it
rt
may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the
matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled

with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The
nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for
the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the
greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though,

however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.”
(emphasis supplied)

59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC

528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is
established that a court considering a bail application

cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an
elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court
is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the

grant of bail.

60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order granting
bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
7

2026:HHC:32813

have guided the Court’s decision to grant bail have also
been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere

.

with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting

bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon
the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic

principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court
on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:

of

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
rt (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant

of bail.” (emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxx

62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of

application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise
of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the
accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :

(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order
(Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and
Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of
the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
8

2026:HHC:32813

follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)
“35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an

.

individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while

considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight
of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused
and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly,

when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material
brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie
conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of

of
bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons
and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts
of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be
given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal
rt
antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of
punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the

offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis
supplied)

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v.

Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC

261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the

gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests

otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,
except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who
seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend
to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely
to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
9

2026:HHC:32813

must weigh with us when considering the question of jail.

So also, the heinousness of the crime….”

10. The present petition has to be decided as per the

.

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. The status report specifically mentions that the

petitioner used to talk to the victim. He and the victim were seen in

the CCTV footage taken from Ambala Bus Stand between 05:18 pm

of
and 05:33 p.m. The petitioner was found missing from her home,

and her presence with the petitioner prima facie establishes the
rt
petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime.

12. It was submitted that the witnesses could not identify

the petitioner in the CCTV footage and the petitioner is entitled to

bail. This submission cannot be accepted. It was rightly submitted

on behalf of the State that the bail Court cannot appreciate the

evidence while deciding the bail petition. It was laid down by the

Delhi High Court in Dineet v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine

Del 8603, that it is impermissible for the bail Court to appreciate

the evidence recorded during the trial and grant bail on the ground

that the witness has not supported the prosecution’s case. It was

observed:

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
10

2026:HHC:32813

“17. Addressing Mr Mahajan’s submissions, it is pertinent to
note that nearly the entirety of the petitioner’s case rests upon
the assumption that this Court may enter into witness
testimonies and evidence to determine contradictions and the

.

hostility of witnesses at the stage of bail.

18. However, it is trite that the same is not within the power of
this Court at the stage of bail, as laid down in Satish Jaggi v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2007) 11 SCC 195 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 660,

paragraphs 11 and 12 of which merit reproduction:

“11. On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Chief
Justice thought it fit to grant bail. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned

of
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
complainant, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned ASG
appearing on behalf of CBI and Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
rt
Chhattisgarh strenuously contended that having regard to
the observations and findings of the learned Chief Justice

as recorded above, it clearly shows that the learned Chief
Justice while granting bail to the accused virtually decided
the case on merit which amounts to acquitting the accused
of the criminal charge levelled against him without trial.

Per contra, Mr Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel,
contended that now the evidence is closed, so there is no
question of the accused tampering with the prosecution
witnesses or fleeing from justice. He further contended

that now the arguments in the case have finally started,
and the arguments of the prosecution are over, and only

the defence is to give its reply. He, accordingly, contended
that the bail granted by the learned Chief Justice need not
be disturbed.

12. Normally, if the offence is non-bailable, bail can also
be granted if the facts and circumstances so demand. We
have already observed that in granting bail in a non-
bailable offence, the primary consideration is the gravity
and the nature of the offence. A reading of the order of the
learned Chief Justice shows that the nature and the gravity
of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of
the society were not at all considered. We are more
concerned with the observations and findings recorded by

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
11

2026:HHC:32813

the learned Chief Justice on the credibility and the
evidential value of the witnesses at the stage of granting
bail. By making such observations and findings, the learned
Chief Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all the

.

criminal charges levelled against him even before the trial.

The trial is in progress, and if such findings are allowed to
stand, it would seriously prejudice the prosecution’s case.
At the stage of granting bail, the court can only go into the

question of the prima facie case established for granting
bail. It cannot go into the question of the credibility and
reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The

of
question of credibility and reliability of prosecution
witnesses can only be tested during the trial.”

19. By virtue of the aforementioned paragraphs from the
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Jaggi, it is evinced
rt
that this Court, at the stage of Bail, cannot look into the
allegations of PW2 being a witness who has turned hostile, nor
apply its mind to alleged contradictions in his statement under

Section 161 of the CrPC when compared with his testimony in
Court, as the same would amount to appreciation of the
evidentiary value of his statement and testimony, and this is
an exercise that is only to be conducted during the course of

trial.

20. The same has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan 2025

SCC OnLine SC 1702, with the following paragraphs of this
decision reproduced for ready reference:

“20.2.5. Further, such an approach of the High Court is
contrary to the judicial precedents of this Court, including
Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), Kanwar Singh

Meena v. State of Rajasthan4, wherein it was held that courts,
while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of
witnesses, as this function squarely lies within the domain of
the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court
violates this principle by commenting on the delay in the
witness statements and imputing a lack of credibility at this
stage” (emphasis supplied)
*****

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
12

2026:HHC:32813

“20.3.6. In the present case, the High Court also
proceeded to analyse and discount the credibility of certain
prosecution witnesses and forensic material. It observed
contradictions in the eyewitness statements concerning

.

the overt acts of the accused (para 26). It expressed doubts

about the prosecution’s explanation for the delay in
recording the statements of CW. 76 and CW. 91 (para 27). It
questioned the timing of the doctor’s supplementary

opinion and weighed its evidentiary worth (para 31). As
already pointed out, the credibility or reliability of witnesses is
a matter for the trial Court to determine after full-fledged

of
cross-examination. It is a trite law that statements recorded
under section 161 Cr. P.C. are not substantive, and their
evidentiary value can only be determined after cross-
examination during trial. Any opinion rendered at the bail
stage risks prejudging the outcome of the trial and must be
rt
avoided. Thus, the court’s assessment of these aspects amounts
to a premature appreciation of the probative value of

prosecution evidence.” (emphasis supplied)
*****
“24. On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the

order of the High Court suffers from serious legal
infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent
reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under
Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a

mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant
omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the High Court

undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at
the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and
delays – issues that are inherently matters for the trial Court to

assess through cross-examination. The trial Court alone is the
appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of
witnesses. Granting bail in such a serious case, without
adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the
offence, the accused’s role, and the tangible risk of
interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and
wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion. The well-
founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with
compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, further

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
13

2026:HHC:32813

reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail.
Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned
order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair
administration of justice and risks derailing the trial

.

process. In light of these circumstances, this Court is

satisfied that the present case calls for the exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Darshan, the
hostility of a witness cannot be interpreted as an automatic
declaration of the prosecution’s case as unconvincing, and

of
thereby, in essence, result in the conduct of a mini-trial at the
stage of bail and return findings upon the ex facie merit of the
accused’s innocence/guilt.

13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs.
rt
State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious

offences, the Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain

the bail application of the accused after the commencement of the

trial and grant bail because of some discrepancy in the testimony.

It was observed: –

“14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder,

dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial
Court or the High Court, should be loath to entertain the

bail application of the Accused.

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)
either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just
before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution
before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the
recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by
looking into some discrepancies here or there in the
deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
14

2026:HHC:32813

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion,
which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or

.

the acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court

exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders
the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the
deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the

pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral
evidence of the victim. It is only if the trial gets unduly
delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the

of
Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release
on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed.”

14. Similarly, it was held by this Court in Suraj Singh v.

rt
State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 268 that the Court exercising bail

jurisdiction cannot appreciate the contradictions in the evidence.

It was observed:

10. Petitioner has placed reliance on the statements of
witnesses already recorded by the learned Special Judge, in

support of his argument to the effect that, from perusal of
these statements, reasonable grounds can be entertained

for concluding prima facie innocence of the petitioner. The
arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be
rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with

the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being
recorded during the trial. Undisputedly, only some of the
witnesses out of the entire list of witnesses relied upon by
the prosecution have been examined. In these
circumstances, it is not prudent to form any opinion as to
the innocence or guilt of the petitioner on the basis of such
partial evidence.

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
15

2026:HHC:32813

15. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail

because some of the witnesses have not identified the petitioner in

.

the CCTV footage.

16. The victim was a minor as per the status report, and

her whereabouts are not known. The petitioner was last seen with

the victim, and only he can explain as to what happened to the

of
victim afterwards, but he has not provided any explanation for it.

Therefore, prima facie, there is sufficient material to connect the
rt
petitioner to the commission of the crime. The victim was found

missing, and it is not known whether she is alive or dead.

Therefore, the nature of the offence is heinous.

17. The offence punishable under Section 87 of BNS is

punishable with imprisonment of 10 years, which means that the

offence is severely punishable. Considering the nature of the

offence and the severity of the punishment, the petitioner is not

entitled to bail. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,

(1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that

when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail.

It was observed on page 244:

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
16

2026:HHC:32813

“6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true
principle around which other relevant factors must revolve.

When the case is finally disposed of, and a person is
sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different

.

footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and

the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to
secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be
liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the

event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In
this perspective, the relevance of considerations is
regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the

of
applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible
in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime charged
(of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest
magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of
rt
extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some
evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure

the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should
he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1]
Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case,
and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows:

[Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51]
“I do not think that an accused party is detained in
custody because of his guilt, but because there are

sufficient probable grounds for the charge against
him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and

because the detention is necessary to ensure his
appearance at trial …. It is a very important element in
considering whether the party, if admitted to bail,

would appear to take his trial; and I think that in
coming to a determination on that point, three
elements will generally be found the most important:

the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is
supported, and the punishment to which the party
would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the
charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains
an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
17

2026:HHC:32813

charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law,
death.”

7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital

.

factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The

punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or
conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

18. It was submitted that the petitioner has remained in

custody for more than one year, the prosecution has not completed

the evidence, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of violation

of
of his speedy trial right. This submission will not help the petitioner.

The status report shows that statements of twelve witnesses have
rt
been recorded and the matter was listed on 28.07.2026. The

examination of twelve witnesses within one year cannot be said to be

a delay in the progress of trial in the absence of the order sheets.

Therefore, the plea that there is a delay in the progress of trial and

the petitioner is entitled to bail because of violation of his right to

speedy trial cannot be accepted.

19. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is

dismissed and so also the pending applications, if any. However, this

order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching theCourt in

case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time.

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS
18

2026:HHC:32813

20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the

disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the

.

merits of the case.

( Rakesh Kainthla )
06th August, 2026. Judge

(Ravinder)

of
rt

::: Downloaded on – 06/08/2026 20:42:03 :::CIS