BHUSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 18.10.2019, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.32/19, dated 13.6.2019 under Sections 279,337, 338 and 304(AA) of IPC, registered with police Station, Nankhari, District Shimla, H.P., ASI Chet Ram has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that pursuant to order dated 18.10.2019, bail petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is fully co ­operating with the investigating agency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further contended that at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, his custodial interrogation is not required and 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.) In view of the aforesaid fair submissions having been made by Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.