1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner, for grant of bail in FIR No.108 dated 8.12.2022 registered at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 427 IPC.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report. Investigating Officer has come present with the record. Record perused and returned.

3. On 8.12.2022, complainant Bijli Mahant lodged a complaint at Police Station Kot Kehloor, alleging therein that transgender of Anantpur Punjab namely Pinki Mahant, Ritta, Ravina, alongwith their disciples and goons unauthorizedly entered their area and gave beatings. He further alleged that the accused made deadly attack with swords as a result of which, fingers of one Mukesh Kumar were cut. She alleged that in the past also, Pinki Mahant alongwith her disciples had unauthorizedly entered their area and had also attempted to take /extort money but matter was compromised and it was agreed that both the parties will not encroach upon their areas and they will ask for Badhai in their respective areas. In the aforesaid background FIR in question, came to be lodged against the accused named in the FIR including present bail petitioner Ajay Kumar.

4. Though Ajay Kumar had approached this court by way of a petition under S.438 CrPC, but that was rejected and thereafter, bail petitioner surrendered before police and is at present in judicial custody. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has prayed for grant of bail.

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner and he is in judicial custody, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Since in the incident, fingers of one Mukesh were cut on account of use of deadly weapon i.e.sword, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, who in that event may flee from justice or indulge in such activities again.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds from the status report that fingers of injured Mukesh were not cut on account of blow of sword, if any, given by bail petitioner rather, such injury was caused by Arun Kumar, who is behind bars. Mere presence of the bail petitioner on the date of incident at the spot may not be sufficient to conclude complicity of the petitioner in case under S. 307 IPC. Whether the bail petitioner had actually participated in the fight or had actually given beatings is a question to be determined by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence led on record by respective parties. Since injured Mukesh Kumar has recovered, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 [LQ/SC/1991/350] has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, [LQ/SC/2017/191] Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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 is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, [LQ/SC/2010/1194] has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

12. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

"(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court."

13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

14. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

15. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.