IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.937 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.938 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.11.2009 Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009 1.Sunita alias Babli …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No. 938 of 2009 2. Sarita alias Pingla ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. R.P.Singh Assistant, Advocate General. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) The Cr.MP(M) No.937 of 2009 has been filed by Smt. Sunita alias Babli whereas Cr.MP(M) No.938 of 2009 has been filed by Smt. Sarita alias Pingla. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in FIR No. 31 of 2009 dated 14.5.2009 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla under Sections 302, 34 IPC. Both the petitions are being disposed of by common order. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.937 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009 that on information received that occurrence had taken place at Chadach, the police proceeded to the spot on 14.5.2009. On the way, the police intercepted a taxi and found Ran Singh with his two nieces Sarita and Babli. Sarita was holding in lap the head of her husband Vikram Singh who was injured. The police took the said vehicle to the hospital at Chopal. The doctor declared Vikram Singh as dead. 3. On the statement of one Kamlesh Devi recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ran Singh, Sarita and Babli were arrested. The accused are in judicial custody and the case is pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla. All the three accused preferred bail applications. The bail application of Ran Singh was dismissed whereas the bail applications of Sarita and Babli were withdrawn. 4. It has been submitted that the case is the result of sudden quarrel without any premeditation. The accused had no intention to kill the deceased who was none else but the husband of accused Sarita and brother-in-law of accused Babli. The taxi was hired to carry the injured for treatment to Chandigarh. In the scuffle the deceased received injury in a fall on the edge of the cot and box etc. The petitioner is a woman and under law has a special case for bail. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The 3 petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009. 5. In Cr.MP(M) No. 938 of 2009 the grounds for release on bail are almost same as have been taken in Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 938 of 2009 has also prayed for grant of bail to petitioner. 6. Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of status report has opposed the bail application of both the petitioners. It has been submitted that on the basis of statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kamlesh Devi the case has been registered. The further case of the prosecution as per status report is that on 15.5.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant was going to her fields for collecting fodder through a passage which is behind the house of Mast Ram. She heard the cries from the house of Mast Ram. On this, she went inside the room of Mast Ram and saw that Pingla, Sunita alias Babli and Ran Singh were given beatings to Vikram Singh with fist and kick blows. Vikram Singh was lying on the floor and was unconscious. Pingla and Babli asked her to go out and she was even pushed out. Thereafter, all the three closed the door and the complainant came out. She informed the villagers, Sukh Ram, Dula Ram reached the spot. It has been alleged that Vikram Singh died due to the beatings given by Pingla, Babli and Ran Singh. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that as per post-mortem report the deceased died as a result of multiple antemortem injuries leading to combination of hemorrhage shock and 4 coma. The accused were arrested on 15.5.2009. On the basis of disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of Pingla on 18.5.2009 a wooden plank was taken into possession. As per the prosecution the accused killed Vikram Singh by giving beatings with fist and kick blows and by wooden plank. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties on either side. Mr. Vinay Thakur has relied K.Malles Rao Vs. State 1986 Cri. L.J. 427 on the point that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, still no case under Section 302 IPC is made out. According to him at the most case under Section 325 is made out and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to bail. He has also relied Mahabir Singh Vs. State 1994 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 715 on the point that when no weapon was used for inflicting injuries, no recovery is to be effected from the accused, in that situation, bail can be granted even under Section 302 IPC. 9. In the FIR complainant Kamlesh Devi has not stated that some other eye witness was present when she entered the room where the accused were allegedly giving beatings to Vikram Singh. In the FIR, she has stated that she does not know what was the cause of dispute. The complainant in the FIR has not stated that any wooden plank was used by the accused for giving beatings to Vikram Singh. The recovery of wooden plank on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of accused Pingla is to be considered in light of the fact that complainant has not stated anything about the use of wooden plank by accused for giving beatings to Vikram Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that some recovery is to 5 be made. In the status report, the prosecution has not shown any apprehension that in case the petitioners are released on bail then they will influence the prosecution witnesses. In the status report it has been stated that quarrel took place on 14.5.2009, but it has also been stated in the status report that Kamlesh Devi had seen accused giving beatings to Vikram Singh on 15.5.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. There is no allegation of use of lethal weapon by the accused as per FIR. Both the petitioners are women, therefore, they have a special case for bail. Accordingly, Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No. 938 of 2009 are allowed. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 31 of 2009 dated 14.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla under Sections 302, 34 IPC on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 10. The observations made in the order are for the disposal of these petitions only and shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. November 6, 2009. (GR) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No.938 of 2009. Date of decision: 6.11.2009 Sarita alias Pingla ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur , Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in Cr.M.P(M) No. 937 of 2009 titled Sunita alias Babli vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge November 6, 2009. (GR)