Vikas Kumar Meena vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9118 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                        CrMP(M) No. 1575 of 2023
                                         Decided on: July 7, 2023
    _______________________________________________________________




                                                                                .
    Vikas Kumar Meena                             ...........Petitioner





                                   Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                        ....Respondent
    _______________________________________________________________





    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate
                                                  with Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Varun





                                                  Chauhan, Advocates.

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

                                  Deputy Advocates General.
                                  Nishchint Singh Negi, Additional
                                  Superintendent of Police, ANTF
                                  Shimla.
    _______________________________________________________________


    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Pursuant to order dated 23.6.2023, whereby bail

petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of arrest

in FIR No. 31. Dated 30.11.2021 under Ss. 8, 21 and 22 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act registered at

Police Station CID Bharari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh,

respondent-State has filed status report and Investigating officer has

also come present with record. Record perused and returned.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

while fairly admitting the factum of joining of investigation by the bail

petitioner, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from

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

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

have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any

.

leniency. He contends that though custodial interrogation of the bail

petitioner is not required by the investigating agency but this court,

having taken note of the seriousness of the matter, may pass

appropriate order.

3. Since in the case at hand, bail petitioner has already

made himself available for interrogation and nothing remains to be

recovered from him coupled with the fact that the main accused

already stands enlarged on bail, there appears to be no reason to

send the bail petitioner in judicial custody.

4. 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. Apprehension

expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in the event

of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or

indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail

petitioner to stringent conditions.

5. 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 been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid

judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

.

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

for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Order dated

23.6.2023 is made absolute, subject to bail petitioner's furnishing

fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with two local sureties in

the like amount each, 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

(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 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.

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 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





      July 7, 2023
        (vikrant)




                   r            to