High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 17 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 SHI CK 0128

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 8
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 476 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 854 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

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 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

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

(e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him.

9.

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.

10.

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.

Copy dasti.