Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.640 of 2010 Dated of Decision: July 12, 2010. Parkash Chand …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.186/2009, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been pending committal Court. The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court of Sessions, as such, the instant application has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for his enlargement on bail. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the instant application are that the petitioner being Tehsildar was 2 earlier posted at Palampur and thereafter transferred to Bilaspur, where he was living with his family. Kumari Kiran is his grown up daughter. The deceased Murari Lal alias Krishan Chand developed intimacy with her. He was a regular visitor in the family at Palampur. Thinking that he is an unmarried chap and both can marry, no one objected to it, but later, while his posting at Bilaspur, petitioner came to know that the deceased was a married person having two children. Therefore, his visits in the house were objected to by one and all. 3. The daughter of the petitioner Kiran took admission in Thapar Engineering Institute, Patiala. Deceased used to visit her and he started blackmailing by making false complaints to the head of the Institution that she was a girl of easy virtue. On his complainants, she was not given admission in the hostel. She visited her parents at Bilaspur, where the petitioner was staying in the allotted Government accommodation. 4. On 15th October, 2009, an unidentified dead body was found floating in Govind Sagar lake, Bilaspur near Karndror bridge, the hands and feet of which were found tied with a rope. Police was informed. Finding a case of murder, police registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation. The postmortem of the dead body was got performed 3 and in the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died due to ante mortem injuries on his head. The dead body was cremated by the Municipal Committee on 19.10.2009. The identity of the dead body was established by DNA to be that of Murari Lal. 5. On suspicion, search of the house of the petitioner was got conducted on 21st October, 2009. Smt. Nisha wife of the deceased and Jaipal, a brother of the deceased both expressed suspicion on the petitioner. 6. On 13.11.2009, the petitioner was arrested and his house was searched. The forensic team was pressed into service. They visited the spot on 19th November, 2009 and noticed some blood stains on the wall of the room. The scrapping thereof was taken, sealed and preserved. The photographs were also taken by the police. Videography of the room was also done on that day and earlier on 15.11.2009. 7. The Forensic Experts pointed the blood stains on the calendar of Lord Ganesha, which was allegedly found hung on the wall of the room. The sample of blood was picked up. The blood of the mother of the deceased Smt. Balki Devi was also taken for DNA profiling. As per report, the blood found on the calendar of ‘Lord Ganesha’ matched with the blood of the 4 mother of deceased, namely Balki Devi. She was opined to be biological mother of the deceased. 8. Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, pointing out the place of the alleged incident and also the place from where the dead body of the deceased was allegedly thrown, i.e. Kandror bridge in Satluj river alongwith weapon of offence i.e. Base-ball Bat. 9. The details of the phone calls of the deceased were also taken into possession, which shows that from the landline of the petitioner, there were repeated calls on the cell phone of the deceased and last call was made p.m. on 5th October, 2009. 10. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General objected to the enlargement of bail of the petitioner, on the ground that he stands fully connected with the alleged offence, therefore, no bail is available to him. 11. I have considered his objection and gone through the investigation file. 12. The whole case centres around the drop of blood, which was taken from the calendar of ‘Lord Ganesha’, which was allegedly found hung in the room where the incident had taken place. On 15.11.2009, 5 police visited the residence of the petitioner, took the photographs and also videographed inside position of the room. None of the photographs taken by the police on 15th and 19th November, 2009 show that the calendar in question was found hung on the wall of the room. Recovery memo of calendar has also not been prepared. The Handicam alongwith CD’s which were allegedly recorded on 15th and 19th November, 2009 were produced in the Court for it perusal. Learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point out that on 15th November, 2009, the calendar of ‘Lord Ganesha’ was found hung in the room of the petitioner, as alleged. The scrapping of the wall, which was allegedly having the blood stains on examination were found not to contain human blood. 13. For the present, it is suffice to say that the petitioner has a case for bail, irrespective of the fact that what value should be attached to the above evidence is a matter of trial. The petitioner is a government servant and permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and there is no allegation that he will not face the trial. 14. Therefore, the instant application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the 6 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall not jump the bail; (b) shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (c) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 15. In case the petitioner shall make breach of any of the conditions, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. 16. The observations made hereinabove are strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and the same shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, for information and necessary action at his end and in case the parties apply for urgent supply of the copies, the same be supplied to them immediately, as per rules. The application stands disposed of. July 12, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. 7