Interim Bail to be given in the Exceptional Cases on Satisfaction of Court Fulfilling all its Conditions: High Court of Shimla
It is a duty of court to look into facts and circumstances of the case while extending interim bail as an exceptional case but it is must to fulfill all the conditions required. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Durga Prasad Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.M.P.(M) No. 537 of 2021] by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. The petition was filed by petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer had been made for his enlargement on interim bail for a period one month. Petitioner was in custody, for possessing 3.277 grams of Cannabis, as a co-accused, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s family comprising one son and one daughter was presently passing through very tough times. His son aged around 30 years was suffering from mental ailment since the year 2013. The medical records relating to ailment of petitioner’s son and submitted that recently his condition had further worsened. It was also pointed out that the married daughter of the petitioner was now facing divorce proceedings before the Courts at Mandi and there was none to look after her interest and to guide her in such crucial times in respect of her matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel further stated that subsequent to petitioner’s arrest, his wife suffered a cardiac attack and died. Petitioner was granted one day interim bail to attend the last rites and rituals of his deceased wife. The petitioner himself had been tested Covid positive and had to remain in isolation as per standard operative procedure. All these factors have caused mental trauma to the petitioner. He is now in pitiable condition with deteriorating health. The learned counsel referred the case of Rahul @ Vijay Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Roop Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh The court opinioned that, “Considering the above facts in totality in respect of the health of the petitioner, mental ailment of his son, pending divorce proceedings of the petitioner’s daughter coupled with death of his wife on and the potential impact of stress, anxiety of all these factors on the petitioner, I am inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two weeks with outer limit of 18.04.2021 by 2.00 P.M.”
 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 04 04 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 537 of 2021 Decided on: 01.04.2021Durga Prasad ...…petitioner VersusState of Himachal Pradesh respondent CoramMs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Vacation Judge.Whether approved for reporting 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sahil Malhotra Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anil Jaswal Additional Advocate General at Police Station Balh District Mandi H.P. By means of instant petition under Section 439 of theCode of Criminal Procedure a prayer has been made for his enlargement oninterim bail for a period one month.2.Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through thestatus report filed by the respondent State. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Hig h C o urt of H.P on 04 04 HCHP 23.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner’s family comprising one son and one daughter is presently passingthrough very tough times. His son aged around 30 years is suffering frommental ailment since the year 2013. Learned counsel has also produced themedical records relating to ailment of petitioner’s son and submitted thatrecently his condition has further worsened. It is also pointed out that themarried daughter of the petitioner is now facing divorce proceedings beforethe Courts at Mandi and there is none to look after her interest and to guideher in such crucial times in respect of her matrimonial dispute. Learnedcounsel further stated that subsequent to petitioner’s arrest his wife suffereda cardiac attack and died on 17.01.2021. Petitioner was granted one dayinterim bail for 26.1.2021 to attend the last rites and rituals of his deceasedwife. The petitioner himself had been tested covid positive on 28.01.2021and had to remain in isolation as per standard operative procedure. All thesefactors have caused mental trauma to the petitioner. He is now in pitiablecondition with deteriorating health. In support of his prayer for enlargementof petitioner on interim bail learned counsel relied upon judgments in SpecialLeave to Appeal No(s). 2194 2020 titled Rahul @ Vijay Vs. The State ofRajasthan decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 15.05.2020 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1883 2020 titled Roop Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradeshdecided on 2.11.2020 & Cr.MP(M) No. 2276 2020 titled Ramesh KumarVs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 31.12.2020 passed by acoordinate Bench of this Court. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 04 04 HCHP 3Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in casethe Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner then the same bemade subject to stringent conditions.4.Considering the above facts in totality in respect of the healthof the petitioner mental ailment of his son pending divorce proceedings ofthe petitioner’s daughter coupled with death of his wife on 17.1.2021 and thepotential impact of stress anxiety of all these factors on the petitioner I aminclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two weeks withouter limit of 18.04.2021 by 2.00 P.M. The petition therefore is allowed andthe petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail in the above mentionedFIR for a period of two weeks subject to his furnishing personal bond in thesum of Rs.1 00 000 with one local surety in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concernedPolice Station. Petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail on orbefore 18.04.2021 by 2.00 P.M. The bail is being granted subject to thefollowing conditions:Petitioner shall not make any inducement threat orpromise directly or indirectly to the Investigating Officer orany person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuadehim her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any PoliceOfficer