VIJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought bail in case FIR No. 136 of 2015 dated 8.8.2015 registered at Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 302, 325, 341, 323 and 34 IPC.

(2.) THE respondent -State has produced the records of the investigation and also filed the status report.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the relative merits of the case, the fact that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the FIR lodged on 8.8.2015 and has thereafter been named as an accused for the first time in the statement recorded of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.9.2015, is sufficient to entitle the petitioner for grant of bail. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in the event of his release would jump the bail or would not associate himself with the trial. After all, the very purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial. This has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference can conveniently be made to recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat & another : JT 2015 (8) SC 125, wherein it was held that the object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the time of 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. The Court has also to consider whether there is any possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to an undertrial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. Thus, grant or non -grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances and the cumulative effect thereof enters into judicial verdict. Any single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.