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 factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of