Sandeep Sharma JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 438 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 101 dated 7.5.2018 under Sections 411, 406 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Sequel to order dated 11.5.2018, SI Mohar Singh has come present with the record. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned.
3. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court states that the bail petitioners have joined the investigation in terms of order dated 11.5.2018 and are fully cooperating. Learned Deputy Advocate General further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and they can be ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available for investigation and trial, as and when required by the investigating agency.
4. Needless to say, guilt of any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved in accordance with law by the investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence, as such, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer having been made on behalf of bail petitioners for grant of bail.
5. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh v. 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 further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 pers........