Criminals Himachal Pradesh High Court Murder

Observing that every sinner has a future and one should not “write off any criminal”, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man related to a murder accused and held that grave allegations cannot override an undertrial’s constitutional right to liberty.

Justice Sandeep Sharma was hearing the regular bail plea of a man, who has been in custody since September 25, 2025. He is accused of helping his nephew, the prime accused in the murder of his 24-year-old wife, flee the crime scene. The court was hearing his petition seeking regular bail after the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed.

“Criminals are not born but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future,” the court said on July 2.

The court noted that the allegations related to the murder were attributed to a co-accused. Against the man appearing before the court, the allegation was that after learning about the murder, he drove his nephew to Pathankot instead of informing the police.

According to the prosecution, the victim and the nephew married several months before the incident without informing her family. After learning about the marriage and the wife’s pregnancy, her family decided to perform customary marriage ceremonies and formally bid her farewell on September 24, 2025.

On September 23, the same year, however, the woman went missing. The police subsequently recovered her half-burnt body from a forest near Bariya in Una district after receiving information from a forest guard. Her mother alleged that her husband and his uncle murdered their daughter.

The prosecution alleged that the couple got into an argument over her pregnancy and money and killed her.

According to the prosecution, the husband later informed his uncle about the murder and requested him to drop him at Pathankot so that he could rejoin his Army unit in Jammu.

The court said that the prosecution’s own case did not suggest that the petitioner had prior knowledge of any plan of murder. It held that the fact of merely opposing the relationship could not, by itself, establish criminal liability. It said that even if the petitioner failed to inform the police after learning about the crime, it was insufficient to infer a prior meeting of the minds or abetment.

The man was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh along with two local sureties of the like amount.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More