SURESH KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 2.12.2019, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 34/2017 dated 28.3.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered with Police Station Karsog District Mandi, HP, ASI Amarjeet Singh, has come present alongwith records. Record perused and returned. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly states that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of previous order dated 2.12.2019, 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, the 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.