1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No.1338 of 2026 Decided on: 03.09.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Pratibha @ Preeti ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ASI Kamal Dev, PS Rakkar, District Kangra, HP present in person. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Sequel to orders dated 22.07.2026 and 11.08.2026, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in FIR No.36 of 2026 dated 29.06.2026, under Sections 316(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 registered at PS Rakkar, District Kangra, HP, respondent/State has filed status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency and ASI Kamal Dev has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, states that though petitioner has joined the investigation, but she is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency. He states that till date, petitioner has not got effected recovery of remaining amount as well as gold ornaments. He states that though investigation clearly reveals that petitioner, in connivance with her sister and brother, misappropriated the amount as well as gold articles, but yet she is not disclosing to whom she had further handed over the money as well as gold articles and as such, her custodial interrogation is required. 3. This court finds that vide order dated 22.07.2026, this court had enlarged petitioner on interim bail, and since 3 then, she has been regularly joining the investigation, which fact has been fairly admitted by the Law Officer, on instruction of the Investigating Officer, but since police has not been able to recover entire amount and gold articles, her custodial interrogation is being sought. This court finds that on the basis of information shared by the petitioner, police has already recovered cash amounting to Rs. 90 lakh and 1.324 kg of gold from person namely Neha, Harvansh, and Brijmohan. Besides above, two vehicles amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/- have been already recovered. 4. Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that whatever amount was received by the petitioner from her sister namely Pratiksha Sharma, has already been handed over to the police and at present, she has no knowledge and clue, if any, with regard to remaining amount. She further states that petitioner is in advance stage of pregnancy, and as such, there is no occasion, if any, for her custodial interrogation. She states that since petitioner is required to be interrogated only with regard to the remaining 4 amount and the gold articles, for which she has already joined the investigation, no fruitful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner behind the bars, rather, in that situation, petitioner would be put to undue harassment. 5. Careful perusal of status report reveals that complainant namely Avinash lodged a complaint, alleging therein that he had handed over 4.5 kg gold along with an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- to person namely Raj Kumari, Pratibha Sharma, Sachin Verma, Bharti Verma, who are refusing to return the same. 6. Police, after having conducted investigation, found that the complainant had been in Dubai w.e.f 2013 to 2025, where he was working as a Sales Executive with Star Creation and Star Gem Gold and Diamond. On 05.12.2018, marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Aarti Verma, who happens to be the daughter of accused Raj Kumari and the sister of the other accused. Though factum with regard to handing over of the amount as well as the gold articles, as detailed hereinabove, has been refuted by the accused, as 5 noticed hereinabove, the police has been able to recover a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- along with 1.324 kg of gold. Besides above, the police has also been able to recover two vehicles, which were allegedly purchased out of the amount misappropriated by the accused named in the FIR. 7. “Whether petitioner herein had actually received the amount and gold articles, if any, from her sister Pratiksha Sharma” is a question to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but certainly, petitioner cannot be denied bail on the ground that she has failed to get the recovery effected of the remaining amount and gold articles, especially when she has already got effected recovery of Rs.90 lakh along with 1.324 kg of gold. Moreover, this court finds that petitioner is in advance stage of pregnancy, and as such, it would be otherwise not in the interest of justice to send her in police custody. This court finds that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and as such, there is no justification to send the bail- petitioner behind the bars. 6 8. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law. 9. 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 freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:- 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another 7 important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, 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. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of 8 other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 10. 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 9 accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any 10 court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, orders dated 22.07.2026 and 11.08.2026 passed by this Court, is made absolute, with following conditions:- a. she shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of 11 hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. she shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. she shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. she shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses her liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. 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. 16. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court 12 shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. September 03, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge