IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1389 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunil Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma and Mr. Rishabh Negi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Sunil Thakur, who is behind bars since 22.7.2026, 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.133 of 2026 dated 2.7.2026, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 74, 333, 62, 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”). 2 2. In terms of order dated 27.7.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Dinesh Kumar, PS Paonta Sahib, has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the Investigating Officer present in the Court, fairly states that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. He states that though petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 74, 333, 62, 64 and 351(2) of BNS, but on account of joining the investigation, his custodial interrogation is not required and as such, in case this Court intends to enlarge the petitioner on bail, he may be put to stringent conditions. 4. 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 3 Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496. 5. 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 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, 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.1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the 4 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. July 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge