Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 06.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:10884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No.2352 of 2024
Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devender Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal & Mr.
Subhash Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar &
Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Tej Singh, IO, PS New Shimla,
District Shimla, H.P. present in person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner namely Devender Kumar, who is behind
bars since 15.01.2024, has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR
No.1 of 2024, dated 15.01.2024, under Sections 21, 27 & 29 of ND
& PS Act, registered at Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla,
H.P. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Tej
Singh has come present with record.
2. Close scrutiny of record/status reported reveals that
on 15.01.2024, police, after having received secret information that
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10884
2
persons namely Kunal Sharma and Devender Kumar, who hail
from Punjab indulge in illegal trade of narcotics, raided room No.
101 of Dusk and Down Hotel, near Khalini Chowk, Shimla, and
allegedly recovered 22.04 grams of Chitta/Heroin in presence of
independent witnesses. Since, no plausible explanation ever came
to be rendered by the aforesaid persons, on record qua
possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having
completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed
hereinabove, arrested both the accused Kunal Sharma and
Devender Kumar on 15.01.2024. Co-accused Kunal Sharma
already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.06.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, under ND & PS Act (CBI Court)
Shimla, whereas present petitioner is behind bars for more than
ten months. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of
law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner,
he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant
of regular bail.
3. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal & Mr. Subhash Verma , Advocates,
argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated because
contraband allegedly recovered in the case at hand was never
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather
from the room of a hotel and not in the presence of independent
2024:HHC:10884
3
witnesses. Mr. Verma, further states that once co-accused already
stands enlarged on bail, coupled with the fact that petitioner herein
is in judicial custody and considerable time is likely to be
consumed in conclusion of trial, he also deserves to be enlarged
on bail. Mr. Verma, further states that since other co-accused
Kunal Sharma is not making himself present in the trial, trial is
being unnecessarily delayed, as a result thereof, petitioner is
languish in jail without his being held guilty.
4. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,
while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in
the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to
be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the
gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does
not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that there is
overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact
that bail-petitioner is a drug-peddler and in the event of his being
enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from the justice, but may
again indulge in these activities. Lastly, Mr. B.C.Verma, submits
that since co-accused Kunal Sharma, who is already enlarged on
bail by the learned Court Court, is absconding, it may be in the
interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that
eventuality, it may not be possible for the Court as well as
2024:HHC:10884
4
investigating agency to conclude the trial and there is possibility of
petitioner’s fleeing from justice.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused material available on record, this Court finds that
intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the
room, where present petitioner was staying alongwith other co-
accused Kunal Sharma and as such, this Court is not persuaded to
agree with learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that bail-
petitioner has been falsely implicated. Moreover, this Court finds
that recovery of contraband was effected in the presence of
independent witnesses. However, having taken note of the fact
that co-accused already stands enlarged on bail, coupled with the
fact that bail-petitioner is behind bars for approximately ten months
and as such, prayer made on behalf of bail-petitioner for grant of
regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial,
deserves to be considered.
6. Record reveals that bail application having been filed
by the petitioner was not considered by the learned Court below on
the ground that at first instance petitioner had approached this
Court. Bare perusal of submission made by learned Additional
Advocate General, as has been taken note hereinabove, suggests
that plea of bail made on behalf of petitioner is being opposed on
the ground that since co-accused Kunal Sharma is absconding,
2024:HHC:10884
5
there is every likelihood of bail-petitioner fleeing from justice in the
event of his being enlarged on bail. However, this Court is not
persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission made on behalf of
respondent-State. Once it is not in dispute that co-accused Kunal
Sharma was also present at the time of recovery of contraband
and order granting him bail passed by learned Court below was
never laid challenge in the superior Court of law, it may not be fair
to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period
during trial, especially when, guilt, if any, of him is yet to be
established by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Though
status report suggests that co-accused Kunal Sharma has failed to
make himself available during trial, but that cannot be ground to
deny the prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of bail,
rather in that eventuality, proper course for prosecution is to apply
for the cancellation of bail granted in favour of co-accused and
besides this, prayer can also be made before learned Court below
to initiate proceedings against surety, who had furnished, surety in
favour of co-accused Kunal Sharma, while, he was enlarged on
bail. Moreover, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not attracted on
account of recovery of intermediate quantity of contraband.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of
cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till
the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Since in
2024:HHC:10884
6
the case at hand guilty, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be
established by the prosecution, as such, this Court sees no reason
to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period
during trial, especially when, nothing remains to be recovered from
the bail-petitioner. Since prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined, this Court has reason to presume and believe that
considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial
and in case bail petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail for an
indefinite period during trial, that would not only amount to pre-trial
conviction, but would also be violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
8. By now, it is well settled that speedy trial is
fundamental right of the accused and one cannot be made to
suffer indefinitely for delay in trial and as such, this Court sees no
reason to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for indefinite
period during trial. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia
Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held
delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para
of the afore judgment reads as under:-
“11. This Court has consistently recognized the right
of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal
trial has been held to be in violation of the right
guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
2024:HHC:10884
7Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid
Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India,
(1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under
TADA, have been released on bail on the ground
that they have been in jail for a long period of time
and there was no likelihood of the completion of the
trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v.
State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, having taken note of
its various judgments passed in the past, proceeded to conclude that if
the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has
no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused
to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,
then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the
plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Most
importantly, in the afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:
“15. The requirement of law as being envisaged under
Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
(hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that
the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall
be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have
precedence over the trial of any other case and Special
Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central
2024:HHC:10884
8Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High
Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.
16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v.
K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713] had an occasion
to consider the long incarceration and at the same time the
effect of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and observed as
under : (SCC p. 722, para 17)“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,both
the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings,the
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down
where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed
sentence. Such an approach would safe-guard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for
wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
17. In the recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC
51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the
attention of the court, which considered the correct approach
towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including
Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that
Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be
enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified
periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973would apply:
“We do not wish to deal with individual
enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it,
followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle
governing delay would apply to these categories also. To
make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the
2024:HHC:10884
9Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of
any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way
in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person.
We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication
ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of
witnesses would be very less and there may not be any
justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to
comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the
process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the
Code.”
18. Criminals are not born out 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.
When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible
for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may
be social and economic, maybe, the result of value erosion or
parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of
circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu
of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court
concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State
or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea
for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature
of the crime.
20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an
accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent
until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever
stringent the penal law may be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which the
prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the
2024:HHC:10884
10
right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to
have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the
Constitution.”
10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 while
placing reliance upon its earlier judgments rendered in number of
cases, especially Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra), again
reiterated that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an
accused and infraction thereof amounts to violation of Arctile 21 of
the Constitution of India. Relevant paras of the judgment passed
in Manish Sisodia case read as under:
“50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial
and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of
these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court
ought to have given due weightage to this factor.
51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an
application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra wherein the accused
was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed
the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the
cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation. The Court observed thus:
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
2024:HHC:10884
11Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting
agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the
ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of
the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime.”
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made
in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial
courts and the High Courts of what came to be
observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v.
Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC
240. We quote:
“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants
reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord
Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
“I observe that in this case bail was refused for the
prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the,
magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail
are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at
trial.”
53. The Court further observed that, over
a period of time, the trial courts and the
High Courts have forgotten a very well-
settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our
experience, we can say that it appears
that the trial courts and the High Courts
attempt to play safe in matters of grant of
bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
2024:HHC:10884
12
refusal is an exception is, at times,
followed in breach. On account of non-
grant of bail even in straight forward
open and shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail
petitions thereby adding to the huge
pendency. It is high time that the trial
courts and the High Courts should
recognize the principle that “bail is rule
and jail is exception”.
54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the
CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case
involves thousands of pages of documents and over a
lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that
there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial
being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping
the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of
time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would
deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the
prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty
of an offence should not be permitted to become
punishment without trial.”
11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1945, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with a case
registered under Sections 13, 18, 18A, and 20 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, enlarged the accused on bail on the ground of
inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Relevant para of the afore
judgment is reproduced herein below:
“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must
mention here that the Special Court and the High
2024:HHC:10884
13Court did not consider the material in the charge
sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on
the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant’s
case could not be properly appreciated. When a
case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts
should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The
allegations of the prosecution may be very serious.
But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for
grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the
rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in
a case like the present case where there are
stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the
relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only
modification that the bail can be granted if the
conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also
means that once a case is made out for the grant of
bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the
Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be
a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21
of our Constitution.”
12. Reliance is also placed upon latest judgment dated
28.8.2024, passed in Prem Prakash v. Union of India through The
Directorate of Enforcement, (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 5416 of 2024), wherein having taken note of the inordinate delay in
conclusion of trial, Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to enlarge the
accused on bail. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:
“12. Independently and as has been emphatically
reiterated in Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on
Ramkripal Meena Vs Directorate of Enforcement
(SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024) and
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693, where the
2024:HHC:10884
14accused has already been in custody for a considerable
number of months and there being no likelihood of
conclusion of trial within a short span, the rigours of
Section 45 of PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford
conditional liberty. Further, Manish Sisodia (II) (supra)
reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh
(Supra), that keeping persons behind the bars for
unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy
completion of trial would deprive the fundamental right of
persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced
guilty ought not to be permitted to become the
punishment without trial. In fact, Manish Sisodia (II)
(Supra) reiterated the holding in Manish Sisodia (I) Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (judgment dated
30.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023) where
it was held as under:-
“28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of
an offence should not become punishment without trial.
If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the
prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided
within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an
economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate
these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for
ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where
100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The
allegations have to be established and proven. The right
to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a
long period, depending on the nature of the allegations,
should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section
45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional
2024:HHC:10884
15mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the
person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he
be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is
not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the
accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may
well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This
would be truer where the trial would take years.”
It is in this background that Section 45 of PMLA needs to
be understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher
constitutional right, statutory provisions should align
themselves to the said higher constitutional edict.”
13. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court having
taken note of all judgments passed in recent times, categorically
held that bail is rule and jail is an exception. If all the judgments
taken note herein above are read in conjunction, Hon’ble Apex
Court has categorically held that court while considering prayer for
grant of bail may not be impressed with the arguments advanced
by the prosecution that charge against the person seeking bail is
serious, but in case, court finds that on account of inordinate delay
in conclusion of trial of the trial, fundamental right of speedy trial is
being violated, it should proceed to grant bail. No doubt, in the
case at hand, charge against the petitioner is serious, but there is
no denial to the fact that bail petitioner is languishing in jail for one
year and ten months despite his not being held guilty, rather
2024:HHC:10884
16
charge against him, if any, is yet to be framed by the competent
court of law.
14. Repeatedly, it has been held that one is deemed to be
innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in
accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the
accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading
cogent and convincing material on record. Apprehension
expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the
event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from
justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent
conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
15. 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.
2024:HHC:10884
17
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on
6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed
for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be
proved. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty.
17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases
49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny
bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the
court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative.
18. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI,
(2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the 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 also, normal rule is of
bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind
2024:HHC:10884
18
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.
19. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus
Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down
various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail
viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment
involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses
being influenced.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case
for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR,
subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following
conditions:
(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of
interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the
trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if
prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption
from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
nor hamper the investigation of the case in any
manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or
promises to any person acquainted with the facts
2024:HHC:10884
19of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police
Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the
prior permission of the Court.
(e) He shall surrender his passport, if any, before the
investigating agency.
21. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or
violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating
agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
22. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall
remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The
petition stands accordingly disposed of.
23. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by
the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the
petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity
of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be
ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
November 06, 2024
(sunil)