IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 889 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.11.2011 _______________________________________________________ Narinder Singh and another ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.203 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawali for offences punishable under Sections 325, 307, 323 and 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner No.1 owns two tractors, one he drives himself and on other petitioner No.2 has been kept as driver. On 19.7.2011 petitioners were coming back to home after unloading the Bajri. At village Chellian one Babu Ram was driving Scorpio vehicle, took quarrel with petitioner No.2 and when petitioner No.1 intervened the said Babu Ram took out an iron rod from his vehicle and attacked petitioner No.1 with iron rod. Ravi Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Kumar complainant joined Babu Ram in giving beatings to the petitioners. The assailants thereafter fled away from the scene. 3. The petitioners went home and reported the matter to the Police Station, Jawali and the rapat was entered by the police vide DD No.5 dated 20.7.2011. The petitioners were got medically examined by the police. 4. The police instead of taking action on the basis of report lodged by the petitioners, it appears recorded the statement of Ravi Kumar on 17.8.2011 and registered the case against the petitioners. The petitioners were arrested on 19.9.2011 alongwith three others. 5. The petitioners are innocent. They have committed no offence nor any recovery is to be made from them. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The three other accused Rajiv Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Rohit Kumar have been released on bail by this Court on 31.10.2011 in Cr.MP(M) No.847 of 2011. The petitioners earlier filed bail applications which have been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on 11.10.2011. The petitioners have prayed for releasing them on bail. 6. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that telephonic information was received at Police Post, Kotla from CH, Nurpur that Ravi Kumar injured has been admitted at CH, Nurpur. On this, ASI, Deepak Kumar, went to CH, Nurpur. The doctor issued MLC dated 20.7.2011 of Ravi Kumar indicating four injuries on his person. The doctor declared the injured unfit to give statement. The father of injured and other concerned persons could not tell anything about the incident. The doctor on 24.7.2011 and 27.7.2011 had again declared the patient not fit to give statement. On 1.8.2011 CT SCAN of the injured was done at Tanda Hospital. On 17.8.2011 the injured was called on telephone and the doctor after going through the CT SCAN opined the injury No.3 grievous. On 17.8.2011, Ravi Kumar got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the case has been registered. 7. In supplementary statement the complainant named the Ajay Kumar, Vipin Kumar and Raju also. The accused were arrested on 19.9.2011. It has been stated that recoveries have been made. The investigation in the case is almost complete. It has been stated that the accused who have been released on bail played distinct role and therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the order dated 31.10.2011 of this Court releasing the three accused on bail. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the injured was discharged on 22.7.2011 but the status report indicates that even on 24.7.2011 and 27.7.2011 the doctor opined that complainant was not fit to give statement. In the status report it has not been stated when the complainant was discharged from the hospital. However, it has been stated that the injured was called on telephone on 17.8.2011 on which date his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 9. The petitioners have stated that complainant and one Babu Ram gave beatings to them and to this effect they lodged rapat vide DD No.5 dated 20.7.2011 at Police Station, Jawali but police did not take further action in the matter, even though the petitioners were got medically examined. The Investigating Agency has stated that enquiry was made from the father of the complainant and other concerned persons, who did not tell anything regarding the incident. In the status report, it has not been specifically stated whether any enquiry was made from Babu Ram regarding the incident. 10. The alleged occurrence took place on 19.7.2001, FIR was registered on 17.8.2011 and petitioners were arrested on 19.9.2011. Prima facie, there is delay in lodging the FIR but the circumstances leading to lodging of the FIR at late stage will be considered during trial. The recoveries have already been made and the investigation in the case is complete, no purpose will be served for detaining the petitioners for indefinite period. The trial of the case will take some time. The other three accused have already been released on bail. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.203 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawali for offences punishable under Sections 325, 307, 323 and 34 IPC. on furnishing their personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, with the condition that the petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 12. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. November 11, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.