Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
GOLDIE WALIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.674 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajat Kumar
For the Respondents: Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu
The court reaffirmed that bail is the general rule and jail the exception, emphasizing that personal liberty under Article 21 should not be curtailed when an accused is cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Headnote:(A) Bail - Custodial Interrogation - Cooperation with investigation - Where the accused has joined the investigation and the State concedes that no further recovery is required and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail. (Para 2, 3)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of Innocence - Personal Liberty - Freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed merely on suspicion; the grant of bail is the general rule and incarceration is the exception. (Para 4, 5, 6)
(C) Bail - Object and Criteria - The primary object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial, not to act as a punitive measure. Factors for consideration include the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. (Para 6, 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the interim bail of the petitioner should be made absolute given his cooperation with the investigating agency.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cooperation with the investigation and lack of need for custodial interrogation justify the grant of bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the presumption of innocence and the primacy of personal liberty make bail the general rule and jail the exception. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. specific judicial factors such as gravity of offence and flight risk must be weighed when deciding bail. (Para 8) |
| 4. interim bail is made absolute subject to conditions ensuring trial attendance and non-interference with evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) :
Sequel to order dated 22.04.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No.38/2025, dated 11.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 420 of IPC/Section 318(4) of BNS, 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 Gen.eral fairly states that pursuant to order dated 22.04.2026, 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 refquired to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, his custodial interrogation is not required and he can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that he r shall make himself available for investigation and trial, as and when called by the Investigating Agency.
3. In Cview of the aforesaid fair submissions having been made by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason for custodial 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. Till 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 & Anr 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 frelevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be irnnocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundoamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that Cthe 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 h 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 H large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the
