Legally Bharat

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: September vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 September, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                                        2024:HHC:8440




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                             CrMP(M) No. 1788 of 2024
                                       Decided on: September 11, 2024
    ________________________________________________________




                                                                                .
    Sonu                                             ...........Petitioner





                                      Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                           ....Respondent
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram:





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr.
                                                  Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.





    For the Respondent                     :      Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
                                                  and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
                                                  Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
                                                  Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.


                                  SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station
                                  Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal
                                  Pradesh.
    ________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Bail petitioner namely Sonu, who is behind bars since 4.9.2022,

has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S. 483

of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’) for

grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 84, dated 3.9.2022 under Ss. 363,

366, 376 and 506 IPC and Ss.4 and 21 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Talai, District

Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and Investigating

Officer i.e. SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur,

Himachal Pradesh has come present with record. Record perused and

returned.

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS

2 2024:HHC:8440

3. In nutshell, prosecution case is that on 3.9.2022, father of

victim-prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police that his minor

.

daughter XYZ has gone missing. He alleged that his minor daughter,

aged 16 years, has not returned home since the evening of 2.9.2022

and he has apprehension that some unknown person has made her

elope with him, as such, appropriate action in accordance with be

taken. After receipt of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR, as

detailed herein above and started investigation. Bail petitioner was

arrested on 4.9.2022 and since then, he is behind the bars.

4. Since, in the investigation it transpired that the bail petitioner

made minor daughter of the complainant elope with him, police after

ascertaining mobile number of bail petitioner, started investigation and

ultimately, recovered the victim-prosecutrix from Rajjowal, District

Ludhiana. Victim-prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Ss. 161

and 164 CrPC, alleged that the bail petitioner made her elope with him

and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Police also

got victim-prosecutrix medically examined and placed on record MLC

No. 3899, perusal whereof reveals that victim-prosecutrix was

subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Since victim-prosecutrix, at the

time of alleged commission of offence was minor, case under S. 366,

376, 506 IPC and S.4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act came to be registered against bail petitioner. Since

Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains

to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, he has approached

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
3 2024:HHC:8440

this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail, on the ground of

inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

.

5. While fairly acknowledging the factum of filing challan in the

competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the

bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have

been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency

and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Rajan Kahol,

r to
learned Additional Advocate General states that evidence adduced on

record clearly reveals that at the time of commission of offence, victim-

prosecutrix was a minor but yet the bail petitioner, taking undue

advantage her innocence and minority, not only made her elope with

him but also sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix, against her

wishes. Mr. Kahol states that since trial has commenced and statement

of victim-prosecutrix stands recorded, coupled with fact that for

recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses, matter

has been fixed by the Court below during 21.10.2024 to 26.10.2024,

prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail, on the

ground of delay in trial, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kahol, learned

Additional Advocate General further states that since petitioner hails

from the State of Punjab, in the event of being enlarged on bail, he may

not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution

evidence, as such, prayer for grant of bail made on his behalf of the

bail petitioner, deserves to be rejected.

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS

4 2024:HHC:8440

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record this court is not persuaded to agree with

.

the submission of Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary,

learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail petitioner has been

falsely implicated rather, there is overwhelming evidence on record

suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner taking undue advantage of

minority and innocence of the victim-prosecutrix, not only made her

elope with him, but also sexually assaulted her against her wishes.

7.

However, having taken note of the fact that the bail petitioner is

behind bars for more than two years and till date, prosecution has been

able to examine 5 prosecution witnesses out of 22, prayer made on

behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail on ground of delay in

conclusion of trial deserves to be considered.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of

India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 184: 2018 SCC OnLine

SC 478 observed that the trial of cases registered under POCSO Act

be conducted expeditiously. Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“25.3. The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to
fast-track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and

following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus
complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time-
frame under the Act.”

9. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that learned trial

Court has not been able to conclude trial within the time provided

under the Act and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS

5 2024:HHC:8440

10. In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine

SC 352, Hon’ble Apex Court held the right to speedy trial to be

.

constitutional right of an accused. The right of bail is curtailed on the

premise that the trial would be concluded expeditiously. Hon’ble Apex

Court held as under:

“13. When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused to
secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has

upheld them for conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of
the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the presumption of
innocence, and societal interest – as observed in Vaman Narain
Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, [2008] 17 SCR 369: (2009) 2 SCC

281 (‘the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the

police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have
committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of
the alleged criminal….’). They are, at the same time, upheld on

the condition that the trial is concluded expeditiously. The
Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994] 2
SCR 375: (1994) 3 SCC 569 made observations to this effect.
In

Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, [1996] 2 SCR

1123: (1996) 2 SCC 616 again, this court expressed the same
sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted,
curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion,

it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded
swiftly. The court said that Parliamentary intervention is based
on:

a conscious decision has been taken by the legislature to
sacrifice to some extent, the personal liberty of an under trial
accused for the sake of protecting the community and the nation
against terrorist and disruptive activities or other activities
harmful to society, it is all the more necessary that investigation

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
6 2024:HHC:8440

of such crimes is done efficiently and an adequate number of
Designated Courts are set up to bring to book persons accused
of such serious crimes. This is the only way in which society can

.

be protected against harmful activities. This would also ensure

that persons ultimately found innocent are not unnecessarily
kept in jail for long periods.”

11. The Court highlighted the effects of pre-trial detention and the

importance of speedy trial as under:

“22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for the grant of bail, may be
necessary in the public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.

Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often

than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s
response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had
recorded that as of 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034

prisoners were lodged in jails against a total capacity of
4,25,069 lakhs in the country[National Crime Records Bureau,
Prison Statistics in India https://ncrb. gov. in/sites/default/files/P

SI-202 1/Executive ncrb Summary-2021.pdf]. Of these 122,852

were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.

23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at
risk of ‘prisonisation’ a term described by the Kerala High Court

in A Convict Prisoner v. State, 1993 Cri LJ 3242 as a radical
transformation ‘ whereby the prisoner:

‘loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal
possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological
problems result from 7 loss of freedom, status, possessions,
dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by
ordinary standards. Self-perception changes. ‘

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
7 2024:HHC:8440

24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, ‘as
crime not only turns admirable but the more professional the
crime, more honour is paid to the criminal'[Working Papers –

.

Group on Prisons & Borstals – 1966 U.K.] (also see Donald

Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 1940[Donald
Clemmer, The Prison Community (1968) Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, which is referred to in Tomasz Sobecki, ‘Donald
Clemmer’s Concept of Prisonisation’, available at:

https://www.tkp.edu.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/Sobecki_s
klad.pdf (accessed on 23rd March 2023).]). Incarceration has

further deleterious effects – where the accused belongs to the
weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in
several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family

bonds and alienation from society. The courts, therefore, have to

be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that
trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent
provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”

12. In Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC

616: 1996 SCC (Cri) 366 Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person cannot

be kept behind the bars when there is no prospect of trial being

concluded expeditiously. It was observed at page 621:

“8. It is in this context that it has become necessary to grant some
relief to those persons who have been deprived of their personal
liberty for a considerable length of time without any prospect of the
trial being concluded in the near future. Undoubtedly, the safety of
the community and 8 the nation needs to be safeguarded looking to
the nature of the offences these undertrials have been charged
with. But the ultimate justification for such deprivation of liberty
pending trial can only be their being found guilty of the offences for
which they have been charged. If such a finding is not likely to be

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
8 2024:HHC:8440

arrived at within a reasonable time some relief becomes
necessary.”

.

13. Similarly, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC

(Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453 that no accused can be subjected

to unending detention pending trial. It was observed at page 335:

“40. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious to what has been urged
on behalf of the respondent-accused that cancellation of bail by this

Court is likely to be construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his
right to seek bail. It is not necessary to dwell upon the wealth of
case law which, regardless of the stringent provisions in a penal law

or the gravity of the offence, has time and again recognised the

legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration. To put it differently,
no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial,
especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven
guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of

bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long

period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent
provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above

the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
(see Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,

(2021) 3 SCC 713, paras 15 and 17] ).”

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024

decided on 03.07.2024 observed that the right to speedy trial of the

offenders facing criminal charges is an important facet of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
9 2024:HHC:8440

trial entitles the accused to grant of bail. Hon’ble Apex Court held as

under:

.

“12 Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., the State of

Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had declared that the
right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is “implicit
in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this

Court”. Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one
which contains a procedure that is “reasonable, fair and just” it was
held that:

“Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person
of liberty cannot be “reasonable, fair or just” unless that procedure
ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person.
No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can
be regarded as “reasonable, fair or just” and it would fall foul of

Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and
by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral

and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is
as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an
offence is denied a speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his
liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation

of his fundamental right under Article 21.”

13 The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in
several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of

Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay
v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter, the court

re-emphasized the right to speedy trial and further held that an
accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: “The State or
complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or
the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with

reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the
large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of
the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often
get competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is wholly
inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands a
speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in
his favour. But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of
infringement of his right to a speedy trial on the ground that he did
not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial.”

15. It was further held that if the State or any prosecuting agency

including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide the right

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
10 2024:HHC:8440

of speedy trial to the accused, then the bail should not be opposed on

the ground that crime is serious. It was observed

.

“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.”

16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh supra has

observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency does not have

wherewithal to protect fundamental right of accused to speedy trial, as

enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, it should not

oppose plea for bail on the ground that offence allegedly committed is

heinous. Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its judgments in Union of

India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Satender Kumar Antil v.

Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

17. In Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 1920, placing reliance upon Javed Gulab Nabi Shaikh

reiterated the right of an accused to speedy trial. In Jalaluddin Khan v.

Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945, Hon’ble Apex Court

enlarged the accused on bail, on the ground of inordinate delay. In

Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of

Enforcement, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of

2024, Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to enlarge the accused on bai, on

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
11 2024:HHC:8440

the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, while relying upon Ramkripal

Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024

.

dated 30.7.2024,Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh supra, Manish Sisodia.

18. In the aforesaid judgments, 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 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, 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

more than two years, despite his not being held guilty.

19. 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 recognised 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 Constitution 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

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
12 2024:HHC:8440

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).

20. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex

Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of

2021, wherein it has been held as under:

“18. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions

like Section 43D (5) of UAPA perse does not oust the ability of
Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of
the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well
as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be

well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, 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 safeguard
against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach

of constitutional right to speedy trial.”

21. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex

Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr, Criminal Appeal

No. 152 of 2020, wherein it has been held as under:

“2. The accused is Malkhan Singh in this appeal. He was named in the
FIR by the appellant Prabhakar Tewari as one of the five persons who
had intercepted the motorcycle on which the deceased victim was
riding, in front of Warisganj Railway Station (Halt) on the highway. All
the five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the F.I.R.
and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon
the deceased victim. The statement of Rahul Tewari recorded on 15th
March, 2019, Shubham Tewari recorded on 12 th April, 2019 and

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
13 2024:HHC:8440

Mahipam Mishra recorded on 20th April 2019 giving description of the
offending incident has been relied upon by the appellant. It is also
submitted that there are other criminal cases pending against him.

.

Learned counsel for the accused- respondent no.2 has however

pointed out the delay in recording the witness statements. The
accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case
also, we find no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the

High Court in granting bail to the accused Malkhan Singh. The reason
why we come to this conclusion is broadly the same as in the previous
appeal. This appeal is also dismissed and the order of the High Court
is affirmed.”

22.

In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

while considering the prayer for grant of bail, 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.

23. Hon’ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court have held in a catena

of judgments that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her

guilt is proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt, if any,

of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law, as

such, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in

jail, for an indefinite period, especially when co-accused stands

enlarged on bail. Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned

trial Court in the totality of evidence led on record by prosecution but

keeping in view aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
14 2024:HHC:8440

to be no justification to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an

indefinite period during trial.

.

24. Since in the case at hand, guilt of the bail petitioner is yet to be

proved in accordance with law, prayer of bail petitioner for grant of bail

deserves to be allowed. Apprehension expressed by of learned

Additional Advocate General that in the event of the bail petitioner

being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by

putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

25.

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.

26. 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.

27. 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

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
15 2024:HHC:8440

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 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.

28. 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.

29. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for

herself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is

ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the

sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with one surety in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, besides the 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;

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS

16 2024:HHC:8440

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to
any person acquainted with the facts of 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.

30. 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.

31.

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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly

disposed of.

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
September 11, 2024
(vikrant)

::: Downloaded on – 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *