ORDER : Bail petitioner namely Sanjeev Kumar, who is behind the bars since 19.9.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 97/21 dated 18.9.2021, registered at Police Station Hatli, Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Pursuant to order dated 12.10.2022, respondent-state has filed the status report. ASI Pyare Lal, PS Hatli, has also come present with the records. Records perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 18.9.2021, deceased Ravi Kumar alias Panku got his statement recorded at PS Baldwara alleging therein that on 17.9.2021, at 9pm while he was in Bhambla Bazar, person namely Neetu along with his one friend, whose name is not known to him but he recognizes him, gave him beatings with iron rods, as a result of which, he suffered injuries on his left eye and several parts of the body. He also alleged that above named Neetu and his friend also obstructed his path and gave him beatings with kicks, fists and iron rod. He alleged that with great difficulty, he was able to escape from the clutches of both the persons, but while leaving, they also extended threats. On the basis of aforesaid complainant, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the accused named in the FIR. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the accused, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this Court peruse the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, especially statement of PW4 Smt. Spana, who happens to be sister of the deceased, Mr. While making this Court peruse the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, especially statement of PW4 Smt. Spana, who happens to be sister of the deceased, Mr. Guleria further submits that it has clearly emerged in the evidence that deceased before succumbing to the injuries suffered by him in the alleged incident disclosed to the police that he was given beatings by three persons including the present bail petitioner and as such, it cannot be claimed that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated. While fairy admitting the factum with regard to the fact that sole eye witness PW1 has turned hostile, Mr. Guleria submits that though in his cross-examination, aforesaid witness has not been able to dispute his statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC, but even otherwise statement of PW4 Sapna is sufficient to conclude the guilt of the accused. Lastly, Mr. Guleria, submits that since statements of material prosecution witnesses yet remain to be recorded, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who in the event of being enlarged on bail may not only flee from justice, but may also temper with the prosecution evidence. 5. Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General states that at no point of time, deceased disclosed the name of the bail petitioner to the police because in that eventuality, police would have definitely recorded the name of the accused in the FIR at the first instance, rather his name came to be recorded on the basis of statements made by PW4 and her mother on 19.9.2021 i.e. after the death of the deceased and as such, no much reliance can be placed upon the same. Mr. Thakur further submits that prosecution witness PW1, who as per prosecution story had an occasion to see the incident has turned hostile and since statement made by PW4 is totally contradictory, same cannot be made basis to conclude the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner. Lastly, Mr. Mr. Thakur further submits that prosecution witness PW1, who as per prosecution story had an occasion to see the incident has turned hostile and since statement made by PW4 is totally contradictory, same cannot be made basis to conclude the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner. Lastly, Mr. Thakur submits that petitioner is behind bars for more than one year and considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period during trial, especially when he is behind the bars for more than one year and 31 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. While placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2020, Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and Anr (alongwith connected matter) and Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Mr. Thakur submits that when there is every likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, court can order for enlargement of the bail petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on this record, this Court finds that on 18.9.2021, deceased Ravi Kumar got this statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, wherein admittedly, he never named the present bail petitioner, rather in his statement given to the police, he stated that on 17.9.2021, at 9pm, he was given beatings by persons namely Neetu alongwith his friend, who is driver by profession in Bhambla Bazar, in the shop of PW1, who while getting statement recorded before the court below has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Though police while placing heavy reliance upon the statements made by PW4 Sapna sister of deceased and mother of the deceased has claimed that deceased before his death disclosed the name of all the accused including the present bail petitioner, if it is so, it is not understood that what prevented the police to record the name of all the accused including the bail petitioner in the FIR at the time of recording of FIR on 18.9.2021, rather their names came to be recovered in the FIR after recording the statement of PW4 and her mother under Section 161 CrPC, wherein they claimed that police recorded the statement of deceased in hospital in their presence and therein he deposed that all the persons including the present bail petitioner gave him beatings. 7. Record reveals that statements of PW4 and her mother under Section 161 was recorded on 19.9.2021 i.e. after the death of the deceased, who admittedly expired on 18.9.2021, in a hospital at Baldwara. It is not in dispute that initially, deceased namely Ravi in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, on the basis of which, police lodged FIR, named only one person namely Neetu. It is only after recording of the statements of PW4 and her mother, names of the accused including the present bail petitioner came to be inserted in the FIR. Interestingly, sole eye witness Sh. Krishan Chand PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. He specifically denied factum with regard to beatings, if any, given by the accused named in the FIR to the deceased Ravi Kumar. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness by the public prosecutor nowhere suggests that prosecution was able to extract something contrary to what he stated in the examination in chief. Apart from above, another material prosecution witness PW4 Sapna stated before the court below that after having received information with regard to beatings, she reached the hospital at Baldwara and in front of them, her deceased brother disclosed to the police the name of all the accused including the present bail petitioner, but she also admitted that her statement under Section 161 was recorded at her village Kanjia on 19.9.2021. Even if for the sake of argument, statement given by PW4 with regard to disclosure of the name made by deceased in her presence at hospital Baldwara is presumed to be correct, there is no explanation that why police failed to array all the accused named by deceased in the FIR at the first instance because admittedly FIR at the first instance came to be recorded on the basis of statement made by the deceased under Section 154 Cr.PC. Otherwise also, if the statement of PW4 is read in its entirety, there appears to be lot of contradictions and inconsistencies. 8. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of facts/evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, there appears to be no reason for this court to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for more than one year and till date, only 4 prosecution witnesses out of total 35 prosecution witnesses have been examined. This court has reason to presume and believe that in any probability, approximately 2-3 years would be taken by the court below to conclude the evidence and if during that time, petitioner is kept behind bars, it would amount to pre-trial conviction. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 , has held delay in criminal trial to be in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads as under:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 ; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 ) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 ) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 ). 10. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021, wherein it has been held as under: “18. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA perse does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2020, wherein it has been held as under : “2. The accused is Malkhan Singh in this appeal. He was named in the FIR by the appellant Prabhakar Tewari as one of the five persons who had intercepted the motorcycle on which the deceased victim was riding, in front of Warisganj Railway Station (Halt) on the highway. All the five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the F.I.R. and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon the deceased victim. All the five accused persons, including Malkhan Singh, as per the F.I.R. and majority of the witness statements, had fired several rounds upon the deceased victim. The statement of Rahul Tewari recorded on 15th March, 2019, Shubham Tewari recorded on 12th April, 2019 and Mahipam Mishra recorded on 20th April 2019 giving description of the offending incident has been relied upon by the appellant. It is also submitted that there are other criminal cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the accused- respondent no.2 has however pointed out the delay in recording the witness statements. The accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also, we find no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the accused Malkhan Singh. The reason why we come to this conclusion is broadly the same as in the previous appeal. This appeal is also dismissed and the order of the High Court is affirmed.” 12. In the aforesaid judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while considering the prayer for grant of bail, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time guilt, if any, of his/her is not proved in accordance with law and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner indefinitely during trial. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s 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 stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. 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, 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. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 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 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.” 16. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI 2017 (5) SCC 218 , The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 17. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 17. 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. 18. 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. The relevant paras of the aforesaid 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. 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. 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 firsttime offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a firsttime 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. 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. 19. 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. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the 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. 20. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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.