Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Arshdeep - petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 2861 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2025
(A) BNS, 2023 - Sections 310(2), 310(5), 126(2), 351(3), 238 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail in connection with FIR No.96 of 2024 for robbery - The investigation is complete, and the complainant has compromised with the accused - The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the conditions under which bail may be granted. (Paras 1, 7, 10, 13)
(B) Bail - The object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not punitive - The court must consider the charge, evidence, and potential punishment when deciding on bail applications. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for allegedly robbing the complainant at knifepoint. The investigation revealed CCTV footage identifying the accused, and the complainant later compromised with the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure attendance at trial.
Issues: The main issues included the completion of the investigation, the nature of the charges, and the implications of pre-trial incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that personal liberty is a fundamental right and should only be curtailed when necessary, emphasizing that the object of bail is to ensure attendance at trial.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail, in FIR No.96 of 2024, dated 27.08.2024, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Sections 310 (2), 310(5), 126(2), 351(3), 238 of the BNS, 2023.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the status report.
3. The FIR in the case at hand was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 27.08.2024 filed by one Avtar with SHO Police Station, Haroli. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 26.08.2024 at about 6.00 A.M. Avtar (complainant) was travelling on his motorcycle to Jajon. A kilometer beyond a place called Polian, six persons on two motorcycles had waylaid him.
4. One of the six, who was wearing a T-shirt bearing No. “10” on the back threatened to kill the complainant. The said individual brandished a Kirpan and took out Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant.
5. During investigation, CCTV footage of government and private cameras installed in the area were checked. On checking the CCTV footage, six persons on two motorcycles were found crossing Polian barrier at about 5.27 A.M. All individuals travelling on the motorcycles had covered their faces with clothes. On the basis of CCTV camera footage taken into possession, some of the accused in the case at hand were identified.
6. On 30.08.2024, the present bail petitioner and Bhupender were arrested from ISBT Amritsar. During investigation, they had revealed the names of the other co- accused namely (Dalwinder Singh, Satinder Singh, Jaskaranpreet Singh and Raman). Accused Dalwinder Singh was arrested on 05.09.2024. The other three accused namely Satinder Singh, Jaskaranpreet Singh and Raman are absconding.
7. From a perusal of the status report, it is evident that the investigation in the case at hand is complete. Insofar as it pertains to the present bail petitioner, Bhupender Singh and Dalwinder Singh, challan stands presented on 27.11.2024. The matter is now listed for consideration of charge before the trial Court. During the pendency of the present petition, the complainant is stated to have compromised the matter with the family members of the accused. The said fact has been confirmed by the respondent and in this respect appropriate status report stands filed and placed on record.
8. In coming to the determination that whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take trial, three elements need to be kept in mind, namely the charge, the nature of evidence by which it is supported and the punishment to which the party would be liable, if convicted. At the time of deciding a bail application, a detailed discussion of evidence, so collected and produced by the prosecution is to be avoided as it may cause prejudice either to the case of the prosecution or to the case of the bail petitioner. As already stated supra, the investigation, in the case at hand, is complete. No further recoveries are to be affected from the petitioner.
9. The consequences of pre-trial incarceration are grave. A person presumed innocent is subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail. Further, a jailed individual is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. The burden of his detention falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.
10. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. The same is to be curtailed only when it becomes imperative, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
11. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. As per the status report, bail petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village Thaona, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab). In order to ensure his presence at trial stringent conditions can be imposed while granting bail.
12. Nothing unfavourable has been stated in the status report qua
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted to ensure attendance at trial, not as a punitive measure.
The court ruled that bail should be granted when no contraband is found in possession, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged cri....
Bail is granted based on the presumption of innocence, absence of prior criminal history, and lack of risk of flight or witness tampering.
Bail is granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, especially if no contraband is found in possession of the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless necessary to ensure attendance at trial, with conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.
The court emphasized that bail is a means to secure attendance at trial, and personal liberty should only be curtailed when necessary, reflecting the presumption of innocence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right that should only be curtailed when necessary, and bail should be granted unless there is a risk of flight or tampering with evidence.
Personal liberty is a fundamental right that should only be curtailed when necessary, and bail should secure attendance at trial without being punitive.
The court granted bail emphasizing personal liberty and the absence of incriminating evidence, while imposing conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent interference.
The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and judicial discretion in bail decisions, allowing bail with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent evidence tampering.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
