Mustkim vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 198 of 2014 dated 29.5.2014 registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 379, 34 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and has preferred this application for grant of pre-arrest bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the status report and records of the investigation carefully.

The prosecution case is that they recovered three scants of wood which in fact was the property of the State and had been illegally taken to a saw-mill by help of tractor by the petitioner and other co accused. The volume of such wood is 1.117 M3 and is valued at Rs. 21,562/-.

In so far as the exact role of the petitioner is concerned, the same would only be established during the trial and admittedly no further recoveries are required to be effected from the petitioner. From the prosecution case and the records of the investigation, the prosecution has failed to make out a case for custodial interrogation.

It is settled law that object of bail is to secure presence of the accused person at the time of trial. The object of bail is therefore, neither punitive nor preventative and in such circumstances, deprivation of liberty must be essentially considered to be a punishment unless of course it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.

This court otherwise cannot oblivious to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and in terms of the law governing this country "everyman is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty". Therefore, in these circumstances, the detention in custody on ground of pending completion of trial would be harsh apart from being unjust. It also cannot be forgotten that any imprisonment before conviction has substantially punitive content.

Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that no recoveries are required to be made and also taking into account the fact that the presence of the petitioner can conveniently be secured since he is a permanent resident of Village and Post Office Misserwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, I find this to be a fit case where the petitioner ought to be granted bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 198 of 2014 dated 29.5.2014 registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 379, 34 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, on following terms and conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.;

(ii) the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency;

(iii) the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iv) the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(v) the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;

(vi) the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV. 7139 dated 18.3.2013.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Petition stands disposed of.

Copy ''dasti''.