IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 951 of 2021 Date of Decision: 4.6.2021.

Nikhil Chandel ...Petitioner.

Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ NO For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. Advocate General.

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

08/2016 25.1.2016 Theog, District Shimla 302, 392, 201 &

120(B) IPC Anoop Chitkara, Judge (Oral An under-trial prisoner, facing trial for committing murder, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking interim bail, because his mother is suffering from Cancer and is at the final stage and doctors of the PGI, Chandigarh advised him for her immediate treatment.

2. In Para 6 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history.

3. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in case this Court grants interim bail to the petitioner then the Court must specify the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

date on which the petitioner would surrender and he should stay away from the family of the victim. P

4. The petitioner has placed on record medical slips and prescription of his mother Smt. Chandra Chandel. A perusal of the medical record reveals that Smt. Chandra Chandel is under treatment of Cancer from Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. One of the documents mentions the date of procedures dated 20.5.2021. Although the allegations against the petitioner are very serious but the health of his mother is not well and thus he wants to spend some time with his ailing mother. This Court believes that it may be otherwise even more important that his mother wouldt like to spend some time with her son and given him prudent advise at the stage of her life.

5. Given the facts and circumstances mentioned peculiar to this case and without commenting on the caose's merits, the petitioner makes a case for release on bail up to July 22, 2021.

6. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020, a fter analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

7. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any Ilaqa Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Magistrate must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

8. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district a) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clausPe of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked account.

b) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

c) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the confcerned Court.

d) If made online, t