The Object of Bail is Neither Punitive nor Preventative but to Secure the Appearance of the Accused Person at his Trial: High Court of Shimla
The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Pankaj and Ranjeet v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.MP(M) Nos. 462 and 463 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma.
The petition was filed by petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 10 of 2021 dated 10.2.2021, under Sections 452, 342, 436, 307, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at P.S. Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. . The Record/status filed by the respondent-State, reveals that on 10.2.2021, got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, at PS Kothkai, H.P., stating therein that she had been working as part time sweeper at PNB, Kotkhai since 2013 and had been residing in room taken on rent in the building along with her son and daughter. She alleged that her husband, and they after having their meals had gone to sleep, but at 3:30am, she noticed fire on the door of her room and heard the noise of footsteps of some persons and as such, she cried and made all other family members wake up. Complainant disclosed to the police that her husband made them to evacuate from house from the ventilator of toilet. In the aforesaid incident, complainant and other family members suffered burn injuries. She claimed before the police that she has suspicion that persons made an attempt to kill her by setting her room on fire, and since then, they are behind the bars. Though investigation was almost that both the petitioners in connivance with each other, made an attempt to set the house of the petitioner on fire.
The council referred the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Further it was held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not in the case of Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010).
The Hon’ble Apex Court opinioned that, ‘one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, their freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial.’
The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the petitions stating that, ‘petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with conditions.’