ANJANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 7.12.2020, whereby the petitioner was enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 175/2020 dated 25.11.2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., respondent - State has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of previous order(s) dated 7.12.2020 and 15.12.2020, passed by this Court and her custodial interrogation is not required. He on the instructions of Investigating Officer also stated that State has no objection in case, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that she shall always make herself 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.