ORDER : Bail petitioner, namely Jogga Singh, who is behind the bars since 26.4.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.142 of 2007, dated 1.7.2007, registered at police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 302, 201, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Respondent-State has filed the Status report and SI Ranjeet Singh, has also come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 1.07.2007, complainant Virender Negi got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that on 30.6.2007, he alongwith his friends, namely Harish, Nitin, Vikas Verma, Vineet, and Amit Joshi, purchased two bottles of liquor (Royal Stag) at 8:00 PM from liquor vend at Sanjauli and after getting few eatables item packed went towards Kalyani Helipad, Chharabra in Maruti Car No. CH-03- 0326. He disclosed to the police that they all consumed 1 ½ bottle of liquor at Kalyani Helipad while sitting in one corner and started dancing. He alleged that on the other corner of Helipad four vehicles were parked and few people were also dancing outside their cars. Complainant, named hereinabove, disclosed to the police that after some time, two vehicles left and when they had finished/consumed 1 ½ bottle of liquor, one person came from other end of Helipad and asked for water. He alleged that he does not know whether his friend Vikas Verma gave him water or not, but he went alongwith that person on the pretext that he wants to dance on Punjabi songs. Complainant alleged that after some time at 11:00 PM, when he went for urination, he saw that Vikas Verma was lying on the ground and some people were giving him beatings. Complainant alleged that they were 10 to 11 in number and when he tried to save/rescue Vikas Verma, he was hit with something on his knee by some person, as a consequence of which, he became unconscious. Complainant alleged that after some time, he and his other friends Amit, Harish, Nitin and Vineet made him awake and disclosed that some people driving PB number Silver Metelic car run over their vehicle over Vikas Verma and fled away from the spot. Complainant alleged that after some time, he and his other friends Amit, Harish, Nitin and Vineet made him awake and disclosed that some people driving PB number Silver Metelic car run over their vehicle over Vikas Verma and fled away from the spot. Complainant alleged that they all brought Vikas Verma to IGMC in car, but he was declared brought dead. Complainant disclosed that all the persons, who gave beatings, were of age of 20-21 and he can recognize 2-3 persons, if brought before him. On the basis of aforesaid statement of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged. During investigation names of Gurpreet Singh, Anish Khan, Kuldeep Singh, Aman Bhardwaj and Shishu Pal were surfaced. Allegedly, during investigation above named persons disclosed to the police that present bail petitioner Jogga Singh was also alongwith them and as such, Jogga Singh also came to be named in the challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, since above named Jogga Singh and other accused Gurvinder Singh failed to make themselves available for investigation, they were declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 3.11.2007. Record reveals that proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C., was initiated against the proclaimed offenders, named hereinabove, including the present bail petitioner and vide order dated 23.3.2019 prosecution evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was closed and file was consigned to the record room. Record reveals that other co-accused, named hereinabove, were acquitted of the charges framed against them from the court of learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused, named hereinabove, respondent-State has filed appeal, which is pending adjudication before this Court. On 26.4.2021, police arrested the present bail petitioner pursuant to proclamation issued on 3.11.2007 and since then present bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since challan against the petitioner stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Since challan against the petitioner stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that since bail petitioner remained absconding for more than 14 years, he is otherwise not entitled for grant of bail because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that initially complainant Virender Negi in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., not named any of the accused, whose names subsequently emerged during investigation, rather in his initial statement he disclosed to the police that on the date of alleged incident 10 to 11 people were giving beatings to deceased Vikas Verma. He disclosed to the police that all the persons responsible for giving beatings to deceased Vikas Verma were clean shaved (Mona’s) and he can identify 2-3 persons, if they are brought before him. Record reveals that accused initially arrested in the FIR were got identified by the police in test identification parade, but since there was no consistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses, learned court below acquitted all the accused named hereinabove on the ground that police has not been able to establish the identity of the accused. Interestingly, in the case at hand, police after arrest of present bail petitioner, who was declared as proclaimed offender got him identified in the police Station by the complainant, Virender Negi as well as his other friends and has claimed that since complainant and other persons present on the spot at the time of alleged incident have identified the present bail petitioner, he is liable to be prosecuted for his having committed murder of deceased Vikas Verma. 6. At this stage, Mr. 6. At this stage, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that once as per own statement of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., all the accused were cleaned shaved and it was admittedly dark, it is not understood that how he could identify the petitioner brought before him after his arrest on 21.6.2004, especially when at that time petitioner was bearing turban and had beard. Moreover, this court finds from the record that at no point of time complainant as well as other friends while identifying the other accused disclosed to the police that some other persons other than the persons brought for identification were also present and as such, it is not understood that how at a later stage after 14 years he could immediately recognize the present bail petitioner, especially when his entire dress up was different from the date when he was allegedly present on the spot. 7. Interestingly, in the case at hand it is not understood that what compelled investigating agency to get the present bail petitioner identified in the police Station immediately after his arrest and why police could not file appropriate application before the Magistrate for test identification parade. Since, there is specific provision laid down in the Code and Jail Manual for identification of the accused, test identification done in the aforesaid manner that too in police Station is itself highly doubtful. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since bail petitioner was arrested after 14 years of the alleged incident on the disclosure made by other co-accused during the investigation of the case, police with a view to ascertain factum with regard to involvement of the bail petitioner in the alleged incident had no option but to get the bail petitioner identified from the complainant, but such plea of learned Additional Advocate General is totally devoid of merit because once petitioner herein stood declared proclaimed offender, investigating agency ought to have sought permission from the Court after his arrest for his test identification from the complainant as well as other persons present on the spot in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that police before filing challan in the competent court of law against the other accused, who subsequently came to be acquitted, had got them identified in test identification parade after having obtained necessary orders from competent court of law. 8. It is not in dispute that police before filing challan in the competent court of law against the other accused, who subsequently came to be acquitted, had got them identified in test identification parade after having obtained necessary orders from competent court of law. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter that proclamation under Section 87 Cr.P.C available at page 16 of the paper book came to be issued in the name of Jog Singh son of Sh. Jab Singh resident of Village Brahamak. whereas name of the present petitioner is Jogga Singh son of sh. Ajaib Singh, R/O Village Brahanke, P.O. Dharamkot, Police Station, Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, Punjab. Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since proclamation never came to be issued in the name of present bail petitioner, there was no occasion, if any, for him to join proceedings pursuant to alleged proclamation issued by the competent court of law. He further states that otherwise also, when other co-accused were on bail during the pendency of the trial, there was otherwise no reason for the petitioner to avoid the trial, who in the event of his having joined the trial would have been also granted bail like other co-accused. This Court finds from the record that proclamation admittedly came to be issued in name of Jog Singh son of Sh. Jab Singh, whereas name of present bail petitioner is Jogga Singh son of Sh. Ajaib Singh. Though petitioner appears to be resident of R/O Village Brahanke, P.O. Dharamkot, Police Station, Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, Punjab but address given in the proclamation is different, where the name of village has been named as Brahamak. It is none of the case of the prosecution that after issuance of proclamation they tried to know the whereabouts of present bail petitioner on the given address because in that eventuality, report would have definitely come that Jog Singh and Jogga Singh are not the same person and if they are same person then address is not correctly mentioned in the challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that mere mentioning of wrong name in the proclamation order would not make petitioner entitled to claim that he was not aware of the proclamation, especially when he was fully aware that trial against other co-accused is pending adjudication before the competent court of law. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that mere mentioning of wrong name in the proclamation order would not make petitioner entitled to claim that he was not aware of the proclamation, especially when he was fully aware that trial against other co-accused is pending adjudication before the competent court of law. He states that it was the co-accused, who disclosed in their investigation that present bail petitioner was also with them and as such, it is highly unbelievable that present bail petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the trial. 10. Record reveals that proclamation was issued against the person namely, Jog Singh son of Sh. Jab Singh vide order dated 3.11.2007. Person namely Jog Sigh was declared proclaimed offender and as such, there appears to be some reason for this Court to believe the version put forth by the bail petitioner that he was not aware of proceedings pending against him in the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla. In view of the above, this Court has reason to conclude that bail petitioner has not absconded during the investigation, rather factum of pendency of trial was not in his knowledge. Be that as it may, now since bail petitioner stand arrested and challan against him under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is also filed in competent court of law, guilt, if any, of him is to be determined/concluded in the totality of evidence collected on record against him by the prosecution. Since prosecution has been not able to prove the presence of other co-accused in the trial and they stands acquitted, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail otherwise deserves to be considered. Since prosecution has been not able to prove guilt of other co-accused in trial, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the present bail petitioner, who was allegedly present on the spot alongwith other co-accused. 11. Though, in the case at hand guilt, if any, of bail petitioner is yet to be proved on the basis of the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but taking note of aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during the trial, especially when guilt, if any, of him is yet to be established on record. Having taken note of the fact that other co-accused stand acquitted of the charges framed against them and guilt of petitioner is yet to be established on record, there appears to be no reason for this Court to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for indefinite period during the trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions, as has been fairly admitted by learned counsel representing the petitioner. 12. Recently, 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 held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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 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. 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 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. 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.” 13. In Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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. 14. Needless to say, the 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 also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, 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. 15. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail i.e. prima facie case against the accused, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of repeating of the offence by accused etc. 16. 15. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail i.e. prima facie case against the accused, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of repeating of the offence by accused etc. 16. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself and as such, present petition is allowed and bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned 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. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him. 17. 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. 18. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.