Cr.M.P.(M)No.610/2008 2.7.2008 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate with Mr. K.S.Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra,Addl. Advocate General for the respondent-State. This application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the applicant/petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.13/2008 registered at P.S. Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.. The applicant- petitioner had earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan by way of application No.27-N/22 of 2008 seeking his release under the same section. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan by a reasoned order has rejected the application on 23.4.2008. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan while rejecting the bail application has not taken into consideration that one Shri Raju and Rama Nand had been enlarged on bail. He then contended that the conduct of Raju has not been properly investigated by the prosecution since according to him, his name was mentioned as accused in the F.I.R. He also argued that his client is only 21 years of age and is disabled to the extent of 65%. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail by this Court. According to him, the applicant has committed heinous crime. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. - 2 - The fact that one Shri Raju and Rama Nand had been enlarged on bail in the same offence will not entitle the applicant to be released on bail. The Court has to see the role played by each accused during the commission of offence. In the present case, the weapon of offence i.e. Danda has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. He has been seen by Raju inflicting injuries on the deceased Sohan Lal. Sh Sohan Lal has received as many as 15 injuries on his body, which are ante- mortem caused by the blunt weapon. The learned Additional Advocate General has apprised the Court that the challan has been put up and the matter will now be listed for framing of charge on 8.7.2008. The Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail. Consequently, the application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove, will not be treated any expression on merits of the main case. (Rajiv Sharma),J. July 2, 2008 (GR)