IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M) No.420 of 2026 Decided on: 25.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________

Rajeev Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh o……….Respondent ____________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandetep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioneru: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal C Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

ASI Anil Chandel, PS Bhoranj, g District Hamirpur, HP present in person.

i____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) :

Sequel to order dated 19.03.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in FIR

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

No.13 of 2026 dated 26.01.2026, under Sections 31.8 (4), 319(2), 336(2), 340(2), 204 & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at PS Bhoranj, DistrHict Hamirpur, HP, respondent/State has filed status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General fairly sutates that pursuant to order dated 19.03.2026, bail petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is fully co-operating with the investigating agency. Mr. Kahol further contends that at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, his custodial interrogation is not irequired and he can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that he shall make himself available for investigation and trial, as and when called by the Investigating Agency.

3. In view of the aforesaid fair submissions h.aving been made by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason for cusHtodial interrogation of the bail petitioner and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Tuill the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

iAnr decided on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. 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 reprod.uced as under:-

2. A fundamental postulate of Hcriminal 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 soome specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental pos tulate in respect of other offences. Yet another impotrtant facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that ther 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 Hi