RAJESHWAR DAYAL JANARTHA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to orders dated 3.12.2018, 21.12.2018 and 11.1.2019, whereby petitioner was enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 9/16 dated 3.4.2016, registered under Sections 420 , 468 , 471 , 201 , 217 , 218 , 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 7 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, registered at PS State CID Bharari, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., Sandeep Dhawal, SP, CID Bharari alongwith DY. S.P. Raju and H.C. Joginder, CID Bharari, H.P., has come present along with records. Record perused and returned. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the . Investigating Agency.

(2.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of previous orders passed by this Court and his custodial interrogation is not required. He on the instructions of Investigating Officer also stated that State has no objection in case, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that he shall always make himself 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.