The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a regular bail application filed by Abhishek alias Jalandhria in connection with a 2018 criminal case, observing that his earlier conduct of absconding from trial weighed heavily against granting him relief. The Court held that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure an accused person's presence during trial, and that requirement was not satisfied in the present case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner sought regular bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Palampur, Kangra, under Sections 365, 366 and 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the bail plea, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial court in November 2025 after remaining in judicial custody. He argued that his wife had recently given birth, he was the sole earning member of the family, and that the dispute had since been amicably settled with the victim and her family. He also informed the Court that a separate petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise was pending.
The State opposed the request, contending that the petitioner had absconded during the proceedings and had been declared a proclaimed offender before surrendering. The prosecution further submitted that several prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined and expressed concern that the petitioner could again evade the trial if released on bail.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the settled legal principles governing grant of bail and referred to several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that courts must consider the seriousness of allegations, the possibility of the accused fleeing justice, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of influencing the trial.
The Court noted that the case record contained allegations that the victim had specifically named the petitioner and others as having forcibly taken her away. At the stage of deciding bail, these allegations were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The Court also attached significant importance to the petitioner's previous conduct.
"The primary reason for granting bail is that the petitioner should be available to face the trial, which is lacking in the present case."
The judgment observed that the petitioner had absconded after registration of the FIR, was declared a proclaimed offender, and surrendered only later. In such circumstances, the Court held there was a genuine apprehension that he might again avoid the trial if released.
The Court further noted that multiple criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner. While those cases were separate, the Court said such antecedents could not be ignored while deciding a bail application, as they were relevant in assessing the possibility of repeated offences and the accused's overall conduct.
Compromise and Parity Arguments Rejected
The petitioner argued that the matter had been settled between the parties and also relied on the fact that other accused persons had been granted bail.
The High Court, however, found that these submissions did not justify granting bail in the present circumstances. It observed that parity cannot be claimed mechanically and must depend on the specific role and conduct of each accused.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court stated:
"Parity, while granting bail, must focus upon the role of the accused."
Since the petitioner had absconded whereas the co-accused had continued to participate in the trial, the Court held that the two situations were not comparable.
Decision
After considering the submissions of both sides, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the regular bail petition.
The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to deciding the bail application alone and would not influence the merits of the criminal trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhishek @ Jalandhria v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr. MP(M) No. 1025 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
