PANKAJ DUTTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order(s) dated 2.1.2020, whereby the petitioner(s) had surrendered before this Court and were enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 265 dated 28.11.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 354 of IPC and Sections 3 (II) and 5 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at PS Haroli, District Una (H.P.), Investigating Officer has come present alongwith records. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that petitioners have joined the investigation in terms of previous order dated 2.1.2020, passed by this Court and their custodial interrogation is not required. He on the instructions of Investigating Officer also stated that State has no objection in case, the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that they shall always make themselves 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.