Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kashmir Singh Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 March, 2021
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2243 of 2020
Decided on March 15, 2021
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir Singh Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioner Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr.
Arvind Sharma, Additional
Advocates General with Mr.
r Kunal Thakur and Ms. Svaneel
Jaswal, Deputy Advocates
General.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner-Kashmir Singh Thakur, has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under S.438 CrPC, for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1, dated 7.1.2020 under Ss. 420, 467,468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Respondent-State, besides filing fresh status report, has also produced the record. Record perused and returned. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General states that though pursuant to the direction issued by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP 2this Court, bail petitioner has joined the investigation but since certain recoveries are yet to be effected from him, it may .
not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage.
3. Per contra, Mr. Peeyush Verma learned Counsel appearing for the bail petitioner, while inviting attention of his Court to the status report filed by the investigating agency in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, District Bialspur, in case of co-accused Jagdish, contends that no recovery remains to be effected from the bail petitioner, as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. Having carefully perused the status report filed by the investigating agency in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, this court finds that though nothing remains to be recovered in the case at hand, however, by way of status report, the investigating agency has stated that since the computer, typing machine and stamps allegedly used by the accused named in the FIR for forging documents, remain to be recovered, bail petitioner may not be ordered to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Status report filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur as well as order dated 14.1.2021 passed by said court in the bail petition having been filed by Jagdish, ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP 3 this Court finds that the computer, typing machine and stamps allegedly used by accused named in the FIR in .
question, already stand recovered, as such, nothing remains to be recovered in the case at hand. Careful perusal of status report further reveals that the bail is being opposed on the ground of recovery but since nothing remains to be recovered, bail petition having been filed by the bail petitioner deserves to be considered, who otherwise deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.
Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.
::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP 46. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr .
decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the 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 also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP 5 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.
9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
10. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed and order dated 22.12.2020 is made absolute, subject to the bail petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, besides the following conditions:
(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP 6
(e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him.
11. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty .
or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge March 15, 2021 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2021 20:29:29 :::HCHP