PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 10/8/2022, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of arrest in FIR No. 26, dtd. 18/6/2022, under Ss. 498A, 406 and 506 IPC, registered at Women Police Station Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report and the Investigating Officer has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

(2.) While fairly admitting the factum with regard to joining of investigation by bail petitioner in terms of order dtd. 10/8/2022, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Guleria further submits that since petitioner hails from Rajasthan, it may not be in the interests of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event he may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence.

(3.) Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned court below in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency but having taken note of the fact that another co-accused, who is father of the present bail petitioner, has been granted bail by this Court on 4/8/2022, which has been confirmed on 8/8/2022 in CrMP(M) No. 1748 of 2022, this court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of bail petitioner, who has made himself available for investigation in terms of order dtd. 10/8/2022. It has been fairly admitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the bail petitioner is fully cooperating and nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.