Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1384 of 2008 9.1.2009 Present: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir and Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 22/2008 dated 30.1.2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the police received information at 3.30 p.m. on 29.1.2008 to the effect that in room No. 201 a girl had consumed poison. The Investigating Officer reached the hotel and found the room locked. The room was opened by the petitioner. The body of the girl was lying on the bed and suicide note was also recovered. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. As per post-mortem report, the deceased died of poison ingestus leading to cardio respiratory arrest. The petitioner had booked the hotel on 24.1.2008 at Manali. Initially, the room was booked up to 26.1.2008. The petitioner disclosed the Manager that they will stay in the room up to 29.1.2008 since they are expecting a friend from Delhi. The waiter went to the room at 8.00 a.m. on 29.1.2008 to serve the tea. The petitioner informed the waiter that he was not interested in tea and thereafter, the waiter enquired about the breakfast at 9.30 a.m.. The petitioner refused to accept the breakfast but asked the waiter for a cup of tea. The waiter has noticed the smell in the room. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He had identified the shop from where he had purchased three packets of sulpha finit multi killer 50 ml and Billion Ten tablets. These purchases were made on 16.1.2008. Initially, Mr. Bajaj had stayed in Sanjay Hotel Moti Lal Attal Road, Jaipur for 15 days. Thereafter, he took the girl to Katra and Vaishno Devi. He has refused to give his specimen signatures. Initially, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, however, after investigation, it was converted into 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased’s sister had received a telephonic call on 29.1.2008. The deceased had informed her sister that the petitioner had administered her poison. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner wanted to get rid of the girl being a married person and father of two children. He had purchased the poisonous substance on 16.1.2008 itself as per his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He took the girl with him from Jaipur and went to Katra and thereafter reached Manali on 24.1.2008. It also appears that he was looking for an opportune moment to administer poison to the deceased. He had initially booked the room up to 26.1.2008 and thereafter, he had to vacate the same on 27.1.2008. He informed the Manager that he shall leave the room on 28.1.2008 after the arrival of his friend from Delhi. His friend has never visited Manali. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that it is only on the basis of the statement of the brother of deceased that the F.I.R. was converted from section 309 of the Indian Penal Code to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that initially F.I.R. was registered under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and it was only after the thorough investigation was carried out and the same was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstances which go against the petitioner at the moment are that he had refused to give his signatures that he had consumed a very limited quantity of poisonous substance to show his bona fide to the deceased that he was also dying with her. The Doctor has opined that the quantity of the substance which the petitioner had consumed was not sufficient to cause major damage to the body. He had further opined that the petitioner could recover without any medical help since the quantity he had consumed was very little. It will also be apt to note that the application preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu has been rejected by a well reasoned order on 5.7.2008. In view of the analysis and the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner has not made out a case to be released on bail. Challan has already been put up against the accused. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and the same is rejected. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and the same shall not be treated as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 9, 2009. (cr)