Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/1572/2026 of ROSHAN LAL Vs STATE OF HP on 24 August 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.1572 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MPM No.1572 of 2026
Date of Decision: 24.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Thakur and Mr. P.C. Thakur, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Sequel to order dated 19.8.2026, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 14 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has placed on record the status report and ASI Ajay Kumar, PS Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, 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 the Court, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 19.08.2026, passed by this Court, bail petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that at this juncture, his custodial interrogation is not required and as such State has no objection, in case the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that he shall always make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Agency.
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. 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.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 19.08.2026, passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the 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 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.
6. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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.
7. 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.
8. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of 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.
August 24, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge