ANURAG Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 62/2013, registered at Police Station, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, on 12.12.2013, under Sections 452, 342, 392, 394, 397, 201, 34 IPC.

(2.) THE respondents have produced the records of investigation and have also filed the status report.

(3.) THE petitioner admittedly has been in judicial custody for the last about 19 months, whereas, other co -accused have already been released on bail. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the accusations and the maximum punishment prescribed and also the fact that the other co -accused have already been ordered to be released on bail, I see no reason why the petitioner should now be denied the grant of bail. After -all, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in the event of his release on bail would jump the bail or would not associate himself with the trial. 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 a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. 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 under trial 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 was 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. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 19 to 23 of the judgment, which read thus: -