The Single Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, consisting of Justice Sandeep Sharma opined 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court must 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.
Facts
Victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Police Station Karsog, alleging herein that she had met the bail petitioner for the first time in Churag, who came to her and took her daughter in his lap. She alleged that the bail petitioner had asked for her telephone number, but when she refused, he extended threats that he will take her daughter away. She alleged that after some time, bail petitioner made video call to her and took screen shot and started blackmailing her. She alleged that bail petitioner started blackmailing her by saying that in case she does not make physical relations with him, he will upload her photographs on Facebook. Victim-prosecutrix alleged that thereafter, bail petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes on 2-3 occasions. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed herein above came to be lodged against the bail petitioner on 31.8.2021 and since 5.9.2021, he is behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail.
Contentions Made
The learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“This Court having carefully perused the material available on record finds it difficult to conclude that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence of the victim-prosecutrix sexually assaulted her against her wishes, rather material available on record reveals that she was in constant touch of the bail petitioner and they both had been meeting each other frequently. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency, but having taken note of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, there appears to be no reason for this court to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, during trial, especially when he has already suffered for almost five months and nothing remains to be recovered from him.”
It further observed that:
“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.”
Judgment
The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:
- He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application.
- He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.
- He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer.
- He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
It was 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.
Case Name: Sh. Ram Singh @ Raku vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 56 Of 2022
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Decided on: 7th December 2021
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
