RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 19/7/2022, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 59/2022 dtd. 17/7/2022 under Ss. 354 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, HP, respondent-State has placed on record the status report. ASI Balbir Singh, PS Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., has also come present with the records. Records perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that pursuant to order dtd. 19/7/2022 passed by this Court, present bail petitioner has joined the investigation and as of now, nothing remains to be recovered from him. He, on instructions, also states that his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage and as such 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. See: Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496.