JAI PRAKASH(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) — CRMPM/595/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010205132026

Filing Number

CRMPM/2754/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRMPM/595/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAI PRAKASH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Kush Sharma,Tanishq Chandel,Tanishq Chandel, ,Tanishq Chandel

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed bail for Jai Prakash, accused of indecent behavior and attempted touching of a 15-year-old girl under BNS Section 75 and POCSO Act Section 8. The court found no cogent evidence of sexual intent at this stage, noted the accused fully cooperated with investigation without requiring custodial interrogation, and applied the principle that bail is the norm and detention the exception until guilt is proven. Bail was granted with conditions including court attendance, no evidence tampering, and no witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMPM/595/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed bail for Jai Prakash, accused of indecent behavior and attempted touching of a 15-year-old girl under BNS Section 75 and POCSO Act Section 8. The court found no cogent evidence of sexual intent at this stage, noted the accused fully cooperated with investigation without requiring custodial interrogation, and applied the principle that bail is the norm and detention the exception until guilt is proven. Bail was granted with conditions including court attendance, no evidence tampering, and no witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case