The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the judge in granting bail, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Sequel to order dated 27.2.2019, whereby petitioner was enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 11/19 dated 10.2.2019, registered under Section 39(1( A of H.P. Excise Act, at P.S. Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., SI/SHO Ashok Negi, has come present along with records. Record perused and returned. 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.

2. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of order dated 27.2.2019 and his custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. He, on instructions, further contended that though investigation is almost complete, but still 15 boxes of liquor are yet to be recovered. He further stated that State has no objection in case, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that he shall always make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Agency.

3. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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.

4. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012)1 SCC 49 ; held as under:

" The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un convited persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

5. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta vs. CBI (2017), 5 SCC 218 , The Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

" This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respe