Sumeet Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1291 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                                       Cr.MP(M) No.39 of 2021
                                                                          Decided on: 25.2.2021




                                                                                      .
    ____________________________________________________________________





    Sumeet Sharma                                      ........ Petitioner

                                                    Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                           .....Respondent
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1





    For the petitioner:                     Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

    For the respondent:                     Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind
                                            Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals, with
                              r             Mr. Kunal Thakur and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal,

                                            Deputy    Advocate   Generals,  for    the
                                            respondent/State.
                             Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
                             Amit Jamwal, Advocate for the complainant.
    ____________________________________________________________________


    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Sequel to order dated 8.01.2021, whereby bail petitioner was

ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case

FIR No.89 of 2020, dated 12.9.2020, under section 498-A, 406, 504, 506

and 34 of IPC, registered with police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra,

H.P., Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has

placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation

carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

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

2. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General

fairly states that pursuant to order dated 8.1.2021, bail petitioner has

already joined the investigation and he is fully co-operating with the

.

investigating agency. Mr. Sharma, further contends that at this stage

nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such,

his custodial interrogation is not required and he can be ordered to be

enlarged on bail subject to the condition that he shall make himself

available for investigation and trial as and when called by the

investigating agency.

3. In view of the aforesaid fair submissions having been made

by Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, this Court

sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner and as

such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of

utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the

time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed

to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner

is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

5. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.

227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided

on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of

utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of

suspicion. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of

accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be

innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as

under:-

.

2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law

where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting

a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being

incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our

society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered

by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a

case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested

during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does

not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an

appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of

.

an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by

incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are

several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other rproblems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

6. 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.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus

Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49;

held as under:-

" The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required

.

to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal

respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial

could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it

would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty

upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most

extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any

court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v.

Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the

following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and

.

standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

9. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 8.1.2021

passed by this Court, is made absolute, 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 of the case so as to dissuade him 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.

10. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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.

11. 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 bail petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.

                                                       (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                            Judge
    25th February, 2021
          (shankar)




                          r             to