Sukant Chauhan(Not Applicable) vs State of HP(Not Applicable) — CRMPM/391/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010123112026

Filing Number

CRMPM/1793/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

CRMPM/391/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sukant Chauhan(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Vinay Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of HP(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

    Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Sukant Chauhan's pre-arrest bail petition in a case involving allegations of armed assault with deadly weapons (sword) against an informant who sustained multiple injuries. The court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional cases, and since custodial interrogation was necessary for evidence recovery and investigation, pre-arrest bail could not be granted. The court applied Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that granting bail during active investigation hampers interrogation and fact-finding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMPM/391/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Sukant Chauhan's pre-arrest bail petition in a case involving allegations of armed assault with deadly weapons (sword) against an informant who sustained multiple injuries. The court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional cases, and since custodial interrogation was necessary for evidence recovery and investigation, pre-arrest bail could not be granted. The court applied Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that granting bail during active investigation hampers interrogation and fact-finding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case