IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 193 of 2009 Date of decision: April 10, 2009. Chander Shekhar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 283, registered on 10.12.2008 at Police Station, Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. under Sections 306, 225 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 283 of 2008 on the allegations that he had abetted the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC by giving threats of dire consequences to deceased, due to threats the deceased consumed salphas and died on 11.12.2008. The petitioner earlier filed bail application, which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… (II), Kangra on 9.3.2009. The two bail applications of the petitioner were rejected under Section 438 Cr.P.C., by this court, but thereafter the petitioner was arrested and rejection of anticipatory bail applications of the petitioner is no ground in itself to reject the bail application of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. There was a theft in the house of the petitioner in the intervening night of 5/6.12.2008. The matter was reported to the police on 7.12.2008. On search of the house of the deceased, some incriminating articles were found in his house and for that reasons the deceased was called for interrogation. The petitioner did not name any person in the report, which was lodged with the police regarding the theft in his house. The deceased and others were called by the police on 10.12.2008, but deceased instead of reporting to the police had consumed salphas tablet and on 11.12.2008 died in the hospital. Thereafter the house of the petitioner was set on fire by some persons and an FIR to this effect was also registered. It has been submitted that petitioner has committed no offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds, if released on bail. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that Kuldip Thappa was brought in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 10.12.2008. He had consumed some poison. On information received, ASI Ajit Singh was sent to Civil Hospital, Pathankot and there statement of Kuldip Thappa, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he had …3… stated that because of fear of police and Shekhar, he consumed one tablet which is used for preserving wheat. Kuldip Thappa died on 11.12.2008. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that this statement of Kuldip Thappa is now a dying declaration of Kuldip Thappa after his death. The petitioner thereafter had gone underground. He filed anticipatory bail application in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Dharamshala, which was dismissed on 9.1.2009. The petitioner was helped by his friends in absconding after the rejection of his bail application, therefore, Section 225 IPC has been added. The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application in this court, which was withdrawn by him on 13.1.2009, he filed another anticipatory bail application which was also rejected on 3.2.2009 and thereafter petitioner surrendered on 4.2.2009. Two FIRs No. 171/96 and 220/98 were registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Indora, in FIR No. 220/98 he was convicted. Deceased Kuldip Thapa was Nepali national and there was resentment amongst Nepalies on the death of Kuldip Thappa. The petitioner is an influential person and if released on bail he can tamper with the prosecution evidence and may abscond. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the status report, it has been stated that Shekhar had threatened Kuldip Thappa on 9.12.2008 that he would not spare him, if police would not proceed against him. On 10.12.2008 police called Kuldip Thappa to report at Police Chowki, Damtal, therefore, out of fear of police and Shekhar, the deceased did not report to police and consumed poison. The alleged threat was …4… given to deceased by the petitioner on 9.12.2008. The deceased consumed poison on 10.12.2008 and it is the case of the prosecution that such action was taken by the deceased out of fear of police and Shekhar. It is the case of the petitioner that in the report he made to the police regarding theft in his house, no-one was named for committing the theft. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that two FIRs against the petitioner were registered and in one of such FIRs, he was convicted. He is an influential person and he may terrorise the prosecution witnesses and flee away from justice in case, he is released on bail. So far as registration of the FIRs is concerned against the petitioner, it is the prosecution case that he was convicted in one case. Therefore, the petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with law. The allegations that petitioner is an influential person, he can hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence, the same are vague. In any case, if petitioner will try to take the law in his own hands, then prosecution is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. I am not purposely commenting on the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice either side. It is enough to say at this stage that petitioner, who is in custody since 4.2.2009 has made out a case for releasing him on bail, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 283, registered on 10.12.2008 at Police Station, Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. under Sections 306, 225 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like …5… amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala with the conditions that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not leave India without the permission of learned trial court. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Dasti copy on usual terms. April 10, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.