IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
Cr.MP(M) No.1188 of 2018
.
Decided on : October 03, 2018
Raman Kaushal ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Additional Advocate
General.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)
ASI Sohan Lal 1/C PP Sarswati Nagar P.S. Jubbal,
District Shimla, HP is present alongwith record.
2. Undisputedly, petitioner has joined the investigation;
fully cooperated and no further recovery is required to be effected
from the petitioner. Also, it is not in dispute that petitioner is a
permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh and there is no
possibility of the petitioner absconding or influencing the witnesses
and interfering with the course of investigation. No doubt, allegations
made by the prosecutrix are serious but considering over all
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
04/10/2018 22:58:19 :::HCHP
2
attending facts and circumstances, more so, that both the petitioner
and the prosecutrix are adult; were having relationship continuous in
.
nature over a period of time and were frequent each other
continuously over a period of time, and perhaps resultant dispute
having arisen over a particular issue leading to the filing of the
complaint, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has
made out a case for grant of interim bail.
3. On 12.9.2018, this Court passed an interim order
directing the petitioner to be released on interim bail, subject to his
complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim
order is in operation till date.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions
from the Investigating Officer, states that investigation is in
progress.
5. Mr. Y.K Thakur, learned Counsel states that petitioner
shall make himself available for investigation at Police Station, as
and when directed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also
perused the record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has
made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 12.9.2018.
04/10/2018 22:58:19 :::HCHP
3
Petitioner is permanent resident of State of H.P. and during
investigation has fully cooperated and there is no likelihood of his
.
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court in the event of trial
being initiated against him. There is nothing on record to highlight
the past criminal conduct of the petitioner. His custodial
interrogation is not required at all.
7. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The
normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court
has to keep in mind the 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, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.
8. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis
Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the
following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for
bail:
04/10/2018 22:58:19 :::HCHP
4
(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.
9. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and
the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner
accused, and also in view of the law discussed, herein above, I feel
that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated
12.9.2018, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down
therein. Needless to add, petitioner is not likely to flee from the
territorial jurisdiction of the country. The petitioner shall be on bail
till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after
he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law.
04/10/2018 22:58:19 :::HCHP
5
Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with
all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section
.
438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified
that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to
influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for
investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He
shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
11. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court
shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein
above.
12. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands
disposed of.
13 Liberty reserved to the State to revive the petition or
seek cancellation of the bail, if need so arises subsequently.
Copy Dasti.
(Sanjay Karol),
October 03, 2018 (cm) Acting Chief Justice.
04/10/2018 22:58:19 :::HCHP
