Kuldeep Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of

anticipatory bail in case FIR No.190 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, registered at police Station, Gagret, Una,

District Una, H.P.

Sequel to order dated 4.12.2020, learned Additional Advocate General while placing on record status report prepared on the basis of the

investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency, fairly states that the Investigating Agency after having perused the record of agriculture

Department, KCC Bank Gagret and Panjawar has not found any involvement of the petitioner in the case at hand and as such, prayer made on his

behalf for grant of anticipatory bail may be allowed.

Having perused the contents of the status report, this Court finds that though petitioner has been named in the FIR bearing No.190 of 2018, but

since no evidence has been found by the Investigating Agency against him in the case at hand, prayer made on his behalf for grant of anticipatory bail

deserves to be allowed.

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.

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.â€​

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.

Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 4.12.2020 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.

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.

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.