IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos.861, 862, 863, 864 and 865 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 861 of 2026 Samuel Thomas Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 862 of 2026 Babita Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 863 of 2026 Jitendra Singh Sameul ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 864 of 2026 Sonal Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 865 of 2026 Saurabh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 2 Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order(s) dated 18.5.2026, whereby bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No.35 of 2025, dated 19.12.2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Women Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Alka, Police Station Kullu, has come present with records. Records perused and returned. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, states that petitioners have joined the investigation and at present, nothing remains to be recovered from them. He further states that their custodial interrogation is not required at this stage and as such State has no objection, in case the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that they shall always make themselves available as and when required by the Investigating Agency. 3 3. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. See: Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496. 4. 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 a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further 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 appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court 4 further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 5. 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. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, order(s) dated 18.5.2026, passed by this Court, are made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a. They shall make themselves 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. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 5 7. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the main case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the concerned authority, who shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. June 17, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge