Sunil vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2175 HP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2175 HP
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2021

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sunil vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 March, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                                 Cr. MP (M) No. 476 of 2021
                                                Decided on March 17, 2021




                                                                             .
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------





     Sunil                                                          ...Petitioner
                                       Versus
     State of Himachal Pradesh                                   ...Respondent





     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     For the petitioner                  Mr.       Servedaman           Rathore,





                                         Advocate, Advocate.
     For the respondent                            Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr.
                                                   Arvind   Sharma,    Additional
                                                   Advocates General with Mr.
                     r                             Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate

                                                   General.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

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

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

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.

4. 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 can

not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her

guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be

innocent until found guilty.

5. 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.

6. 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 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 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.

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

for himself, as such, present petition is allowed and order dated

15.3.2021 is made absolute, subject to the bail petitioner

furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one

local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer, 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;

(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