AMAN PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 22/6/2021, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 14/2021 dtd. 16/6/2021, under Ss. 354-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sec. 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, registered with Women Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, HP, respondent-State has placed on record the status report.

(2.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that pursuant to order dtd. 22/6/2021 passed by this Court, present bail petitioner has joined the investigation and as such, his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. He, on instructions, 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.