‘Criminals not born but made’: Himachal Pradesh High Court grants bail in murder case

“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 judge 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.

Justice Sandeep Sharma directed murder accused Sanjeev Kumar’s release on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh along with two local sureties of the like amount. (Image enhanced using AI)

Prosecution’s case

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

On September 23, 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. The woman’s mother then accused the young husband and his uncle of murdering her.

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

‘No evidence’ of conspiracy

The court said that the prosecution’s own case did not suggest that the petitioner-uncle had prior knowledge of any plan of murder. It held that 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 not sufficient to infer abetment or that they had discussed it beforehand.

Speedy trial

• A variety of factors are responsible for making an offender commit a crime. These factors may be social or economic, the result of value erosion or parental neglect, due to the stress of circumstances, or the temptations caused due to a gap between the rich and poor.
• If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court, has no way to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, then it should not oppose the bail plea stating that the crime committed is serious.
• Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
• If during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner is allowed to remain in jail for an indefinite period, it would not only amount to pre-trial conviction, but would also violate Article 21.
• The prosecution has proposed to examine 53 witnesses, but so far, not even one has been examined, which means that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time.

Final order

Granting bail to the uncle of the prime accused in the case, the court directed him to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh along with two local sureties of a similar amount.