Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: September vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CrMP(M) No. 1788 of 2024
Decided on: September 11, 2024
________________________________________________________
.
Sonu ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr.
Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station
Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Bail petitioner namely Sonu, who is behind bars since 4.9.2022, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S. 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 84, dated 3.9.2022 under Ss. 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Ss.4 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Respondent-State has filed status report and Investigating Officer i.e. SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS2 2024:HHC:8440
3. In nutshell, prosecution case is that on 3.9.2022, father of victim-prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police that his minor .
daughter XYZ has gone missing. He alleged that his minor daughter, aged 16 years, has not returned home since the evening of 2.9.2022 and he has apprehension that some unknown person has made her elope with him, as such, appropriate action in accordance with be taken. After receipt of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and started investigation. Bail petitioner was arrested on 4.9.2022 and since then, he is behind the bars.
4. Since, in the investigation it transpired that the bail petitioner made minor daughter of the complainant elope with him, police after ascertaining mobile number of bail petitioner, started investigation and ultimately, recovered the victim-prosecutrix from Rajjowal, District Ludhiana. Victim-prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC, alleged that the bail petitioner made her elope with him and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Police also got victim-prosecutrix medically examined and placed on record MLC No. 3899, perusal whereof reveals that victim-prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Since victim-prosecutrix, at the time of alleged commission of offence was minor, case under S. 366, 376, 506 IPC and S.4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act came to be registered against bail petitioner. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, he has approached ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:8440 this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail, on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.
.
5. While fairly acknowledging the factum of filing challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Rajan Kahol, r to learned Additional Advocate General states that evidence adduced on record clearly reveals that at the time of commission of offence, victim-
prosecutrix was a minor but yet the bail petitioner, taking undue advantage her innocence and minority, not only made her elope with him but also sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix, against her wishes. Mr. Kahol states that since trial has commenced and statement of victim-prosecutrix stands recorded, coupled with fact that for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses, matter has been fixed by the Court below during 21.10.2024 to 26.10.2024, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail, on the ground of delay in trial, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General further states that since petitioner hails from the State of Punjab, in the event of being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence, as such, prayer for grant of bail made on his behalf of the bail petitioner, deserves to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS4 2024:HHC:8440
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court is not persuaded to agree with .
the submission of Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated rather, there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner taking undue advantage of minority and innocence of the victim-prosecutrix, not only made her elope with him, but also sexually assaulted her against her wishes.
7. However, having taken note of the fact that the bail petitioner is behind bars for more than two years and till date, prosecution has been able to examine 5 prosecution witnesses out of 22, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail on ground of delay in conclusion of trial deserves to be considered.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 184: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 478 observed that the trial of cases registered under POCSO Act be conducted expeditiously. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"25.3. The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast-track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time- frame under the Act."
9. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that learned trial Court has not been able to conclude trial within the time provided under the Act and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS5 2024:HHC:8440
10. In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, Hon'ble Apex Court held the right to speedy trial to be .
constitutional right of an accused. The right of bail is curtailed on the premise that the trial would be concluded expeditiously. Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"13. When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused to secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has upheld them for conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the presumption of innocence, and societal interest - as observed in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, [2008] 17 SCR 369: (2009) 2 SCC 281 ('the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal....'). They are, at the same time, upheld on the condition that the trial is concluded expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994] 2 SCR 375: (1994) 3 SCC 569 made observations to this effect. In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, [1996] 2 SCR 1123: (1996) 2 SCC 616 again, this court expressed the same sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion, it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly. The court said that Parliamentary intervention is based on:
a conscious decision has been taken by the legislature to sacrifice to some extent, the personal liberty of an under trial accused for the sake of protecting the community and the nation against terrorist and disruptive activities or other activities harmful to society, it is all the more necessary that investigation ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 6 2024:HHC:8440 of such crimes is done efficiently and an adequate number of Designated Courts are set up to bring to book persons accused of such serious crimes. This is the only way in which society can .
be protected against harmful activities. This would also ensure that persons ultimately found innocent are not unnecessarily kept in jail for long periods."
11. The Court highlighted the effects of pre-trial detention and the importance of speedy trial as under:
"22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for the grant of bail, may be necessary in the public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as of 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against a total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country[National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics in India https://ncrb. gov. in/sites/default/files/P SI-202 1/Executive ncrb Summary-2021.pdf]. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.
23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of 'prisonisation' a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State, 1993 Cri LJ 3242 as a radical transformation ' whereby the prisoner:
'loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from 7 loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes. ' ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:8440
24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, 'as crime not only turns admirable but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal'[Working Papers -
.
Group on Prisons & Borstals - 1966 U.K.] (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 1940[Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (1968) Holt, Rinehart & Winston, which is referred to in Tomasz Sobecki, 'Donald Clemmer's Concept of Prisonisation', available at:
https://www.tkp.edu.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/Sobecki_s klad.pdf (accessed on 23rd March 2023).]). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts, therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily."
12. In Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616: 1996 SCC (Cri) 366 Hon'ble Apex Court held that a person cannot be kept behind the bars when there is no prospect of trial being concluded expeditiously. It was observed at page 621:
"8. It is in this context that it has become necessary to grant some relief to those persons who have been deprived of their personal liberty for a considerable length of time without any prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future. Undoubtedly, the safety of the community and 8 the nation needs to be safeguarded looking to the nature of the offences these undertrials have been charged with. But the ultimate justification for such deprivation of liberty pending trial can only be their being found guilty of the offences for which they have been charged. If such a finding is not likely to be ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 8 2024:HHC:8440 arrived at within a reasonable time some relief becomes necessary."
.
13. Similarly, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 453 that no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial. It was observed at page 335:
"40. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious to what has been urged on behalf of the respondent-accused that cancellation of bail by this Court is likely to be construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his right to seek bail. It is not necessary to dwell upon the wealth of case law which, regardless of the stringent provisions in a penal law or the gravity of the offence, has time and again recognised the legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration. To put it differently, no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (see Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, paras 15 and 17] )."
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024 observed that the right to speedy trial of the offenders facing criminal charges is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 9 2024:HHC:8440 trial entitles the accused to grant of bail. Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
.
"12 Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., the State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is "implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court". Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was held that:
"Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied a speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21."
13 The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter, the court re-emphasized the right to speedy trial and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: "The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands a speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of infringement of his right to a speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial."
15. It was further held that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide the right ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 10 2024:HHC:8440 of speedy trial to the accused, then the bail should not be opposed on the ground that crime is serious. It was observed .
"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh supra has observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency does not have wherewithal to protect fundamental right of accused to speedy trial, as enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, it should not oppose plea for bail on the ground that offence allegedly committed is heinous. Hon'ble Apex Court referred to its judgments in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
17. In Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, placing reliance upon Javed Gulab Nabi Shaikh reiterated the right of an accused to speedy trial. In Jalaluddin Khan v.
Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945, Hon'ble Apex Court enlarged the accused on bail, on the ground of inordinate delay. In Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to enlarge the accused on bai, on ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 11 2024:HHC:8440 the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, while relying upon Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 .
dated 30.7.2024,Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh supra, Manish Sisodia.
18. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of all judgments passed in recent times, categorically held that bail is rule and jail is an exception. If all the judgments taken note herein above are read in conjunction, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that court, while considering prayer for grant of bail, may not be impressed with arguments advanced by the prosecution, that charge against the person seeking bail is serious, but in case, court finds that on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, fundamental right of speedy trial is being violated, it should proceed to grant bail. No doubt, in the case at hand, charge against the petitioner is serious, but there is no denial to the fact that bail petitioner is languishing in jail for more than two years, despite his not being held guilty.
19. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 12 2024:HHC:8440 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).
20. 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 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."
21. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 13 2024:HHC:8440 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 broadly the same as in the previous appeal. This appeal is also dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed."
22. In the aforesaid judgment, 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.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court have held in a catena of judgments that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law, as such, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, for an indefinite period, especially when co-accused stands enlarged on bail. Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence led on record by prosecution but keeping in view aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 14 2024:HHC:8440 to be no justification to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial.
.
24. Since in the case at hand, guilt of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law, prayer of bail petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be allowed. Apprehension expressed by of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.
25. 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 cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
26. 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.
27. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS 15 2024:HHC:8440 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, 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.
28. 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.
29. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for herself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, 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;::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS
16 2024:HHC:8440
(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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge September 11, 2024 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2024 20:30:45 :::CIS