MUNI LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cr.MPM No. 1316 of 2022 De-link. Cr.MPM No. 1313, 1314, 1315 and 1317 of 2022

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, fairly states that pursuant to order dtd. 16/6/2022 passed by this Court, bail petitioners have joined the investigation and as of now, nothing remains to be recovered from them. He, on instructions, also states that their custodial interrogation is not required at this stage and as such State has no objection, in case the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that they shall always make themselves 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.