DEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Sandeep Sharma, J. -
(1.)Sequel to order dated 27.12.2019, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 79/2019
dated 14.5.2019 under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC, registered
with Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, HP, SI Ajeet Kumar, P.S.
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., has come present alongwith records.
Record perused and returned. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional
Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on
the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.
(2.)Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly states that petitioner
has joined the investigation in terms of previous order dated 27.12.2019,
passed by this Court and his custodial interrogation is not required. He on
the instructions of Investigating Officer also stated that State has no
objection in case, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject
to condition that he shall always make himself available as and when
required by the Investigating Agency.
(3.)Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied
in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is
whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.
Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also,
normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of
accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.