Sandeep Sharma DECISION
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Since all the bail petitions arise out of the same F.I.R., they are being taken up together for final disposal by this Court.
2. Sequel to order dated 18.7.2019, whereby bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of their arrest in case F.I.R. No. 111 of 2019, dated 15.7.2019 under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, ASI Rajesh Kumar, has come present in Court alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.
3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that pursuant to order dated 18.7.2019, bail petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are fully co-operating with the investigating agency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further contended that investigation is almost complete save and except report of visra and handwriting expert, which are yet to be received, and as such, custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner(s) is not required and they can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available for investigation and trial as and when called by the investigating agency.
4. In view of the aforesaid fair submissions having been made by Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners and as such, they deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.
6. Recently, the 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 freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed for indefinite period during the trial. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No. 2 to 5 of the 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 investigation........