NISHA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 10/1/2022, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 3/2021 dtd. 23/11/2021, under Ss. 420, 467, 471, 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sec. 13 (2) and 13 (1) d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered with Police Station SV&ACB Solan, District Solan, H.P., respondent-State has placed on record the status report. Insp. Ravinder Kumar, PS SV&ACB Solan, H.P., has also come present with the records. Records perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that pursuant to order dtd. 10/1/2022 passed by this Court, present bail petitioner has joined the investigation and as of now, nothing remains to be recovered from her. Mr. Sharma, on instructions, also states that her 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 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.