The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the importance of freedom, and the need for a humane approach in dealing with bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J —Bail petitioner namely Jali, apprehending her arrest, approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking prearrest bail in FIR No. 34 of 2018, dated 9.3.218, under Section 306 registered with Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 26.3.2018, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, SI Radhey Shyam has come present with the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional 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. Perusal of record/ status report suggests that FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant namely Sandeepna, who alleged that her husband had illicit relations with the bail petitioner, who despite having known the fact that deceased Raj Kumar was married, kept on living with him as his wife. Complainant further alleged that she has suspicion that the bail petitioner is responsible for the death of her husband, who allegedly committed suicide on 24.12.2017. As per investigation, husband of the complainant was staying in Hotel Pushpak, Fingask on 24.12.2017 alongwith the bail petitioner. Allegedly, some altercation took place between the bail petitioner and the deceased, whereafter he(deceased) allegedly consumed poison and ultimately passed away. Investigation further reveals that the bail petitioner was with the deceased on 24.12.2017, who after having discovered the fact that the deceased has consumed poison, took him to IGMC, but unfortunately, he could not be saved.

4. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/ status report, contended that no case, if any, is made against the bail petitioner under Section 306 IPC, because there is no evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency, suggestive of the fact that deceased Raj Kumar consumed poison after being tortured or harassed by the bail petitioner, who was admittedly known to him for quite considerable time. Mr. Saklani, further states that otherwise also it was the bail petitioner, who immediately after alleged incident took deceased to the hospital. Lastly, Mr. Surinder Saklani contended that sequel to order dated 26.3.2018, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and she has handed over her mobile phone containing record of conversation between her and deceased Raj Kumar, to the investigating agency and as such no fruitful purpose shall be served in case she is kept in custody.

5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum that the bail petitioner has joined the investigation pursuant to order passed by this Court, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by bail petitioner, it may not be proper to grant her anticipatory bail at this stage, especially when investigation in the case is yet to be completed. Mr. Dinesh Thakur further, on instructions, admitted that the bail petitioner has handed over her mobile phone to the investigating agency, but stated that in the event of her being enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of her tampering with the evidence, as such, present bail application may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record, this Court is of the view that since the bail petitioner has joined the investigation and she is fully cooperating with the investigating agency, as such, no fruitful purpose shall be served in case her custodial interrogation is allowed. As has been fairly admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the bail petitioner has joined investigation and has also consented for giving her voice sample, this Court sees no reason to deny bail to the petitioner.

7. Guilt if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance