SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
SANDEEP SHARMA, J. -
(1.) By way of present petition filed under S.438 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 11, dated 9.3.2021, registered at Police Station Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh under S.354-A IPC and S.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Status report stands filed.
(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and there is nothing required to be recovered from the bail petitioner. However, learned Additional Advocate General, while expressing his apprehension that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, stated that, in case, this Court intends to enlarge the petitioner on bail, he may be imposed strict conditions.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court sees no reason for the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner at this stage. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or tamper with prosecution evidence, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. Otherwise also, Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly held that till the time, guilt of an individual is proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner, is yet to be determined in the totality of the evidence collected on record by the prosecution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.