Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case, Says 'Criminals Are Not Born But Made'
- Prateek
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
"Every saint has a past and every sinner a future." — Justice Sandeep Sharma
In a significant order highlighting the constitutional right to personal liberty and the importance of speedy trials, the Himachal Pradesh High Court granted regular bail to a man accused of helping his nephew flee after the alleged murder of his wife.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, while hearing the bail application, observed that "criminals are not born but made" and emphasized that society should not permanently write off individuals accused of crimes.
The Court also reiterated that the seriousness of an offence alone cannot override an undertrial's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court Says Every Sinner Has a Future
While allowing the bail application, Justice Sandeep Sharma made important observations on crime, rehabilitation, and human potential.
The Court observed:
"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 observations were made in the order dated July 2.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had been in judicial custody since September 25, 2025.
He approached the High Court seeking regular bail after the police completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was not the principal accused in the murder.
Instead, he was accused of helping his nephew, who allegedly murdered his 24-year-old wife, escape from the crime scene by driving him to Pathankot.
Prosecution's Version
According to the prosecution, the victim and the petitioner's nephew had married several months before the incident without informing her family.
After the victim's family learned about the marriage and her pregnancy, they decided to organize traditional marriage ceremonies and formally bid her farewell on September 24, 2025.
However, on September 23, 2025, the woman went missing.
Later, following information received from a forest guard, police recovered her half-burnt body from a forest near Bariya in Una district.
The victim's mother alleged that her husband and his uncle were responsible for her daughter's murder.
The prosecution claimed that the couple had argued over the victim's pregnancy and financial issues before the alleged murder.
It was further alleged that after the incident, the husband contacted his uncle and requested him to drive him to Pathankot, enabling him to return to his Army unit in Jammu.
Court Finds No Evidence of Prior Murder Conspiracy
While examining the material placed before it, the High Court observed that the prosecution itself had not alleged that the petitioner had prior knowledge of any plan to commit murder.
The Court held that merely opposing the relationship could not automatically establish criminal liability.
Justice Sharma further observed that even if the petitioner failed to inform the police after learning about the alleged crime, such conduct alone was insufficient to establish conspiracy or abetment.
The Court found no material indicating a prior meeting of minds between the petitioner and the principal accused.
Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21
The High Court also discussed the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sharma observed that various social and economic factors often contribute to criminal behaviour.
The Court noted that crime may result from:
Social and economic circumstances.
Erosion of values.
Parental neglect.
Stressful life situations.
Temptations arising from inequality and deprivation.
The Court emphasized that these broader factors cannot be ignored while dealing with accused persons.
Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Continued Detention
The Court further observed that if the State or prosecuting agencies are unable to ensure a speedy trial, they cannot oppose bail solely on the ground that the alleged offence is serious.
Justice Sharma observed that:
Article 21 applies regardless of the nature of the offence.
An accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely while awaiting trial.
Prolonged incarceration before conviction would amount to a form of pre-trial punishment.
Such detention would violate the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Trial Likely to Take Considerable Time
The High Court also considered the stage of the criminal trial.
The prosecution proposed to examine 53 witnesses.
However, the Court noted that not even a single prosecution witness had been examined.
Considering the large number of witnesses, the Court observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.
This factor also weighed in favour of granting bail.
Bail Conditions
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the petitioner's release on the following conditions:
Furnishing a bail bond of ₹2 lakh.
Providing two local sureties of the like amount.
The Court clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail application would not affect the merits of the criminal trial.
Key Observations of the High Court
The judgment highlights several important legal principles:
Every accused has a constitutional right to personal liberty.
"Criminals are not born but made," and rehabilitation should not be ignored.
Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.
Serious criminal allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention before trial.
Article 21 guarantees both personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.
Lack of evidence showing prior conspiracy weighs in favour of bail.
Delays in trial are a relevant consideration while deciding bail applications.
Case Summary
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Custody Since: September 25, 2025
Relief Granted: Regular Bail
Bail Amount: ₹2 lakh
Sureties: Two local sureties of the like amount
Comments