RAJNEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, present bail petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail in FIR No. 15 of 2020 dated 18.4.2020, under Sections 509, 354, 354-A, 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Women Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of previous order dated 21.5.2020, passed by this Court and his custodial interrogation is not required. He on the instructions of Investigating Officer also states that State has no objection in case, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that he shall always make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Agency.

(3.) 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.