1. Bail petitioner namely Raman Kumar, who is behind the bars since 01.03.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 21 of 2024, dated 01.03.2024, registered at Police Station Lambagaon, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 341, 323, 342 and 307 IPC.

2. Pursuant to order dated 23.09.2024 passed by this Court, respondent-State has filed the status report/record under the signatures of Station House Officer, Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and ASI Karam Chand, I.O., Police Station Lambagaon, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh has come present along with record.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 29.02.2024, Ms. Saroj wife of Rajesh Kumar, got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that on 29.02.2024 at about 09:28 p.m., she received telephonic call from Ward Member, Preethi Chand that her husband Rajesh Kumar, i.e. victim, is lying in fields under the influence of liquor. She alleged that when she reached on the spot, blood was oozing from various parts of the body of her husband on account of injuries given to him by some unknown persons. She alleged that subsequently she came to know from the persons namely Anil Kumar and Shiva that bail petitioner namely Raman Kumar had given merciless bearings to her husband, as a result thereof, he suffered injuries, which could be dangerous to his life. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioner and on 01.03.2024, he was arrested and since then, he is behind bars.

4. Though at first instance, an attempt came to be made by petitioner to get regular bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but such prayer of him was not accepted, as a result thereof, he is behind bars for more than seven months.

5. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse medical evidence adduced on record, Mr. Kahol contends that bail petitioner is at fault of giving merciless beatings to the victim with the help of stick, as a result thereof, he suffered injuries, which could be dangerous to his life. He further states that since there is animosity inter se petitioner and victim, prayer made on behalf of the bail- petitioner for grant of bail deserves outright rejection, because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again cause harm to the victim, who has recently recovered from his injuries, inflicted upon him by the petitioner.

7. Having heard counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather, statements given by persons namely Anil Kumar and Shiva clearly reveal that beatings were given to the victim by bail petitioner, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries. However, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than seven months and guilt, if any, of him is yet to be established on record, coupled with the fact that victim has already recovered from the injuries allegedly inflicted upon him by the petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be considered.

8. Evidence adduced on record reveals that injuries inflicted upon the person of the victim by the petitioner could be dangerous to his life, but that may not be sole ground for this Court to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail for the reason that guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. No doubt, persons namely Anil Kumar and Shiva have supported the version put forth by the complainant, but they are yet to be examined in the competent Court of law, as such, it would be too premature to conclude the complicity of the bail petitioner alleged to have been committed by him. Otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by letting the petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, which would otherwise amount to pre-trial conviction.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record, coupled with the fact that he is behind bars for more than seven months, as such, his incarceration for indefinite period is clear cut violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner's being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. 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 cannot 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.

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 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.

12. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, 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.

13. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, 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.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with 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."

15. 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.

16. 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 application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

17. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.