H.K. GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 19.6.2019, whereby petitioner was enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 55/17 dated 14.3.2017, under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (i) d (II) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at PS Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Dy. SP (City), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., has come present along with 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 passed by this Court and his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. He on the instructions of Investigating Officer also states 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.