Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 December, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 2270 of 2022
Date of Decision: 1.12.2022
_____________________________________________________________________
Ajay Grover
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja and Mr.
Arun Grover, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Guleria, Additional Advocate General,
with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner namely Ajay Grover, who is behind the bars since 26.1.2022, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 15/2022 dated 19.1.2022, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 304, 308, 328, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the HP Excise Act.
::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 22. Pursuant to order dated 21.11.2022, respondent-state has filed .
the status report. ASI Dev Raj, PS Sundernagar, has also come present with the records. Records perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 19.1.2022 at 2:30 pm, Police Station Balh, after having received telephonic information from the Ner Chawk hospital that few persons after having consumed spurious country made liquor have fallen ill, visited the Hospital at Ner Chowk and recorded the statement of complainant Sohan Singh i.e. brother of deceased Lal Singh under Section 154 CPC, who alleged that on 17.1.2022 at 7:00AM, his deceased brother had gone to Slappar driving tipper, but on 18.1.2022, it transpired that his brother has fallen ill after consuming spurious liquor. He alleged that though deceased Lal Singh was taken to hospital for treatment, but he unfortunately died. He alleged that few other persons, who had also consumed country made spurious liquor have also expired and some of them are under treatment. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the various persons named in the FIR, including the present bail petitioner. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on consuming the spurious country made liquor, seven persons lost their lives and 14 others got sick/injured. During investigation, it transpired that present bail ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 3 petitioner, who was one of the partner of the M/s Aakash Chemicals, had .
supplied 170 drums/12000 ltrs of spirit through co-accused Santosh Kumar to the alleged manufacturers of country made liquor. As per prosecution, present bail petitioner called co-accused Santosh on mobile number to inform that one truck containing 12000 ltrs of spirit is coming to Baddi, which he may store in the store of M/s Aakash Chemicals. Co-
accused Santosh Kumar allegedly unloaded the spirit with the assistance of person namely Bir Singh, Ashok, Mahender and Jamura and thereafter, stored 170 drums in the store of M/s Aakash Chemicals. Subsequently, above named Santosh Kumar allegedly sold the spirit in different quantities on different dates to different accused persons, viz. Gaurav Minhas alias Goru, Virender alias Gagan, Gurdev and Anil Kumar alias Manu etc., for manufacturing spurious country liquor. Since on 4.01.2022, Gurmit Singh driver of the co-accused Virender died after consuming the spirit, Virender Singh asked Santosh Kumar for testing the spirit contained in the drums.
At his insistence, co-accused Santosh sent one litre spirit sample obtained from these drums for testing to 'Auriga Lab under the name of M/s Yamuna Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Report received by co-accused Santosh Kumar in this regard on 12.1.2022, was forwarded through whatsapp to the present bail petitioner, who confirmed the report to be correct. Subsequently, using ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 4 this spirit, the accused Virender alias Gagan illegally manufactured .
spurious country liquor marked "Santra" and supplied in Salapar area causing deaths of several persons and injuries to various others. Since spirit, with which spurious country made liquor came to be manufactured, was supplied allegedly at the instructions of the petitioner, he alongwith other persons also came to be named in the FIR. There are total thirty accused named in the FIR and out of which, 18 accused already stand enlarged on bail. Present bail petitioner had also approached this Court by way of Cr.MPM No. 923 of 2022, but same was dismissed on 22.7.2022 on the ground that there is nothing available on record to suggest that persons died or fell ill had not consumed the liquor made from the spirit supplied by the petitioner. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail.
4. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency.
::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 5Mr. Guleria submits that after having consumed spurious liquor made from .
the spirit supplied by the petitioner, eight persons have lost their lives and many have fallen sick and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on the bail, who in the event of being enlarged on the bail, may not only flee from the justice, but can also temper with the prosecution evidence. Mr. Guleria further submits that though sample taken from 126 drums got recovered by Santosh Kumar, suggests that spirit supplied through these drums was not containing methyl alcohol, but since eight people have lost their lives after consuming spurious liquor, it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated.
5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General submits that though status report itself suggests that one Gurmit, driver of co-accused Virender died after having consumed liquor made from the spirit supplied by the co-accused Ladi, but even if it is presumed that bail petitioner had supplied the spirit, enabling the other co-accused to manufacture spurious country made liquior, there is no evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that spirit supplied by the petitioner was containing methyl alcohol, which was the cause of death of the brother of the complainant and other ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 6 persons as has been opined in the post mortem report. While referring to .
the FSL report given qua the samples drawn from 126 drums recovered by the investigating agency on the disclosure made by the co-accused Santosh, Mr. Kochhar states that no point of time, it has been opined that spirit supplied by the present bail petitioner was containing methyl alcohol, rather it has been categorically stated that sprit supplied through 126 drums was containing ethyl alcohol. Mr. Kochhar, further contends that all the prime accused, who sold the spurious liquor already stand enlarged on bail and as such, petitioner whose complicity if any, is yet to be established in the alleged commission of offence under Sections 304, 308, 328, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of HP Excise Act, also deserves to be enlarged on bail, especially when he has already suffered for more than ten months.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on this record, this Court finds that precise case of the prosecution against the bail petitioner is that he had supplied 12000 liters of spirit containing methyl alcohol, enabling other accused to manufacture the country made spurious liquor. It has been further alleged that on account of consumption of spurious country made liquor, seven persons lost their lives and 14 persons were got injured/ill. Allegedly, co-accused ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 7 Santosh, who had supplied the spirit to other co-accused, enabling them to .
manufacture the spurious country made liquor, disclosed to the police that he had stored the spirit in the store of M/s Aakash Chemicals Baddi on the askance of the present bail petitioner. It has nowhere come in the statement of co-accused Santosh that present bail petitioner, who is stated to be one of the partner of M/s Aakash Chemicals, instructed him to supply the spirit to other persons, enabling them to manufacture spurious country made liquor. As per own admission of the co-accused Santosh, he with the help and aid of persons namely Bir Singh, Ashok, Mahender and Jamura sold the spirit in different quantities on different dates to different accused persons, viz. Gaurav Minhas alias Goru, Virender alias Gagan, Gurdev and Anil Kumar alias Manu etc., who allegedly after manufacturing the spurious liquor supplied to the local vendors in Slappar, from where brother of the complainant and other injured persons purchased the same and died or fell ill after having consumed the spurious country made liquor.
7. Though learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that 126 drums recovered at the instance of the co-accused Santosh containing spirit were supplied by present bail petitioner, but there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove the aforesaid allegation. Though prosecution has claimed that present bail petitioner before becoming ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 8 partner in M/s Aakash Chemicals was authorized agent of M/s Yamuna .
Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Paonta Sahib, but at this stage, there is no document to substantiate aforesaid claim of the prosecution. Even if it is presumed that present bail petitioner was authorized agent of M/s Yamuna Beverage Pvt. Ltd., it is not understood how he being authorized agent could arrange for huge quantity of spirit for further supply to the accused named in the FIR, enabling them to manufacturer spurious country made liquor because there is nothing on record to suggest that M/s Yamuna Beverages ever lodged complaint/FIR against such person for having mis-used the spirit lying in their stores. Moreover, status report as well as record made available to this Court is conspicuously silent about the source of spirit allegedly used by persons for making country made spurious liquor.
Interestingly, FSL in its report has opined that samples drawn from 126 drums recovered at the behest of co-accused Santosh, contained ethyl alcohol, whereas cause of death, as has been shown in the post mortem report, is consumption of methyl alcohol. Since methyl alcohol was never found in the spirit allegedly supplied by the present bail petitioner to other co-accused for manufacturing spurious country made liquor, it would be too premature at this stage to conclude the guilt, if any, of the petitioner under Sections 304, 308, 328, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 and 120-B of IPC ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 9 and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of HP Excise Act. Moreover, this Court finds .
from the status report that as per own case of the prosecution, five drums of spirit were supplied by another co-accused Ladi and driver, who transported such drums, died after having consumed that spirit, meaning thereby, spirit supplied by co-accused Ladi was containing some adulterated substance. Interestingly, prosecution failed to apprehend five drums of spirit supplied by Ladi, who is otherwise absconding till date.
Apart from above, it is own case of the prosecution that co-accused Virender Kumar, Gurdev, Anil and Rakesh manufactured the country made spurious liquor from the spirit supplied by co-accused Ladi, which was further supplied through co-accused Surender Kumar in Slappar area from where brother of the complainant and other injured had purchased the liquor.
8. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General forcefully submits that since all the grounds raised in the petition had already been considered and decided by coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 923 of 2022, whereby prayer for grant of regular bail made by the petitioner was rejected, present petition is not maintainable because there is no changed circumstance. However, having carefully perused copy of order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, this ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 10 Court finds no force in the aforesaid submission of learned Additional .
Advocate General because at that time though challan was filed, but report of FSL with regard to content of spirit allegedly supplied through 126 drums was not available. Admittedly, copy of FSL report was supplied alongwith copy of challan on 27.8.2022 to the accused, which fact has not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate General. Moreover, if the reasons cited by the coordinate Bench of this Court rejecting earlier bail are perused, it clearly reveal that at that time, court had no material to decipher whether persons died or fell ill after having consumed spurious liquor supplied by the bail petitioner or not. Though in the case at hand, precise case of the prosecution is that spurious country made liquor was made by the co-accused Gurdev, Virender, Anil and Rakesh by using spirit supplied to them by co-accused Ladi, but even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that present bail petitioner had supplied the spirit to Santosh co-accused, but since samples drawn from the drums, got recovered by the co-accused Santosh, had been found to be containing ethyl alcohol, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, deserves to be accepted.
No doubt, seven persons have lost their lives, but the court cannot lose sight of the fact that guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Though ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 11 case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of .
facts/evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, there appears to be no reason for this court to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for more than ten months. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record. No doubt gravity of offence is a major factor to be kept in mind by the court while considering bail, but it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by a person, court is also required to keep several other factors in mind. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner's being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.There is another aspect of the matter i.e. delay in conclusion of the trial. In the instant case, petitioner is behind bars for last ten months, but till date, charge has been not framed. After ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 12 framing of charge, considerable time is likely to be consumed in recording .
the evidence and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:-
"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).
10. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021, wherein it has been held as under:
"18. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA perse does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 13 of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there .
is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2020, wherein it has been held as under:
"2. The accused is Malkhan Singh in this appeal. He was named in the FIR by the appellant Prabhakar Tewari as one of the five persons who had intercepted the motorcycle on which the deceased victim was riding, in front of Warisganj Railway Station (Halt) on the highway. All the five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the F.I.R. and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon the deceased victim. The statement of Rahul Tewari recorded on 15th March, 2019, Shubham Tewari recorded on 12 th April, 2019 and Mahipam Mishra recorded on 20th April 2019 giving description of the offending incident has been relied upon by the appellant. It is also submitted that there are other criminal cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the accused- respondent no.2 has however pointed out the delay in recording the witness statements. The accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also, we find no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the accused Malkhan Singh. The reason why we come to this conclusion is ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 14 broadly the same as in the previous appeal. This appeal is also .
dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed."
12. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering the prayer for grant of bail, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.
13. 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.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:-
" The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 15 person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more .
than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
15. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI 2017 (5) SCC 218, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
" This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 16 prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article .
21 of the Constitution was highlighted."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 17 is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it .
would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first- time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 18 Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been .
taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with 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 - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS 19
19. 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.
20. 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 application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
21. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.
December 1, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 20:32:31 :::CIS