PUSHPENDER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 9.1.2018, Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit, placing therewith copy of family register and certificate issued by the Village Lumberdar & Pradhan, perusal whereof clearly suggests that bail petitioner is unmarried and he has not contracted marriage with any other girl as was reflected in the status report filed on the previous date.

(2.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly states that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner is not required at this stage and as such, he can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that he shall make himself available for investigation and trial as and when called 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.