Regular bail sought in FIR involving murder of two women for money, with recoveries including tie locks, tape rolls, scissors and DNA evidence linking the petitioner. The court found prima facie involvement and held that gravity of offence and severity of punishment outweigh trial delay; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:5866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 79 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.2.2026 Date of Decision: 06.3.2026.
Jitender Pal Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the Petitioner | : | Mr Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondents | : | Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate |
| General, assisted by HC Rajender | ||
| Dutt, No. 30, IO, PS Parwanoo, District Solan, HP. |
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 18 of 2022, dated 2.2.2022, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 342, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2026:HHC:5866
3
2026:HHC:5866
as the passengers who were taken by him in his vehicle. Subsequently, the police examined the CCTV footage and discovered that a vehicle bearing registration number HR-03N3403 was moving suspiciously on the intervening night of January 30-31, 2022. The police enquired at the Tata Agency, Phase-II, Industrial Area, and found that the vehicle was purchased by Manpreet Singh. Manpreet Singh subsequently informed the police that he had sold the vehicle to Ajay Gautam. Ajay Gautam further disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Sukhbir. Sukhbir, in turn, revealed that he had sold the vehicle to Jitender Pal (the present petitioner) some months before the incident. The police apprehended Jitender Pal and searched his vehicle. The police recovered 13 tie locks, tape rolls, and scissors from the vehicle’s dickey, which were similar to the articles utilised for securing the deceased bodies. Additionally, the police searched the residence of Parvinder Singh and discovered the Aadhaar cards of the petitioner and Geeta. The police also retrieved various articles from the room. The police also recovered the hair from the table and the bed, and the bed sheets, which were used for wrapping the dead bodies. Dinesh Kumar got recovered the gold ring and a copy of the Aadhar card. The
4
2026:HHC:5866
petitioner and the co-accused also led the police to the place where the articles and the dead bodies were thrown. The call details of the mobile numbers of Jitender Pal, Dinesh, Geeta, Nisha, Aakashdeep, Bhupinder Singh and Parvinder Singh were checked, and a call was found to have been made by Jitender Pal to the deceased. The CCTV footage and receipts of the toll showed the involvement of the petitioner and the co-accused. Plastic tie lock, tape roll and scissors were recovered from the petitioner’s vehicle. Similar tie locks were recovered from the room where the incident had occurred. The statements of seven witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 20.3.2026. Hence, the status report.
5
2026:HHC:5866
complete the evidence, and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
( 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)
6
2026:HHC:5866
“ 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 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 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 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
7
2026:HHC:5866
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)
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. 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 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
8
2026:HHC:5866
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 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 :
xxxxxxx
9
2026:HHC:5866
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 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 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 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)
10
2026:HHC:5866
plastic tie locks, tape roll and scissors were also recovered from the vehicle. Similar tie locks were found in the room from where the Aadhar Card of the deceased was recovered. DNA of the deceased Nisha was found on the bed sheet, and DNA of the deceased Geeta was found in the quilt recovered from the room. The petitioner had talked to Parvinder Kumar as per the call detail record. He had also talked to Geeta. These circumstances prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime.
“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
11
2026:HHC:5866
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 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 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 sufÏcient 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 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.
12
2026:HHC:5866
“24. As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for the grant of bail to the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 7775:(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743] , it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 ”
No other point was urged.
13
2026:HHC:5866
is dismissed.
the case's merits.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused should be granted regular bail in a double-murder case punishable with capital punishment based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether delay in trial progress alone justifies release on bail despite the gravity of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pinki v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Relied on¶11
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶13
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1363 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitender Pal Singh
State of HP
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
