Himachal Pradesh High Court: Normal Rule Is of Bail, and Not Jail

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The Petitioner in the case of, Partap Singh and others v State of Himachal Pradesh, was allegedly involved in the illegal possession of drugs. The police filed an FIR and arrested the petitioner under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act for the same. Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for Anticipatory Bail. The court granted the same and considered the case to be fit for bail. The Coram consisted of Mr Justice Sandeep Sharma.

Brief facts of the Case 

On 6th August 2020, the police launched an FIR against the Petitioner. The police booked the Petitioner under section 18 of the Narcotic, Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. The charges were filed due to his alleged possession of Poppy and Opium.

The Petitioner, through an instant petition, filed for Anticipatory Bail. The Petition was filed under Section 438 of CrPC.

According to the status report filed, investigation of the case and gathering of evidence is yet to be completed. Also, there is nothing left for recovery from the Petitioner. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation. Also, based on the evidence collected, as of now, there is no need for custodial interrogation. Further, there is nothing left for recovery from the Petitioner. Thus, the bail ought to be granted on these grounds. 

Respondent’s Arguments

The Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Petitioner may try to tamper with the investigation by manipulating the evidence. Further, the Counsel argued that he may try to flee from justice if enlarged on bail. The Counsel stated that if he has to gets enlarged on bail, it should be with stringent conditions.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the Petitioner’s custody would not serve any benefit. The court referred to precedents given by the Supreme Court which have deliberated on synonymous disputes. The Court quoted the 2018 decision in Dataram Singh v State of UP and Anr (CRL.) NO. 151 OF 2018. The precedent carried an identical opinion. It held that freedom of an indicted individual cannot be abridged for an uncertain period.

The court observed that the accused is innocent until found guilty. Thus, he should get treated like an innocent individual until he is convicted, under law. The court stated that punishment only begins after proving the accused to be guilty. The court further stated that bail is not meant to be punitive or preventive.

The court further observed that bail of the Petitioner has to be decided by looking at the state of the investigation, circumstances and evidence and not the severity of the charge alone. It stated that the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support and character of the accused must also be taken into account. 

Further, bail can be denied to ensure that the accused does not escape away from the trial and justice. 

However, based on the aforesaid facts and status report, it does not find any reason to deny bail. Thus, the court found the case to be fit for bail.

Court’s Judgement

Based on aforesaid facts, the court allowed the petition. Further, the petitioner was ordered to adhere to strict conditions for bail. 

First, he has to cooperate and have to be present whenever needed for the investigation. Second, he should not tamper with any evidence, or influence the investigation in their support. Third, the court has to be kept updated about his whereabouts. Lastly, he cannot leave the country.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -