1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 827 of 2011. Date of decision: 24.11.2011. Amrish Rana. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). The petitioner has filed the petition for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 40/2003 dated 19.03.2003, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla, under Sections 147,148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. This application has been sent by the petitioner from jail. 2. The petitioner has filed another application and requested that Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, may be appointed to pursue his bail application at State expense. A notice was issued to Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, as prayed by the petitioner. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, has appeared. He has not declined the request of petitioner for pursuing his bail application. Accordingly, Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, Advocate, is appointed to pursue the bail application of the petitioner. His fee shall be regulated under the rules. The H.P. State 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? . Yes 2 Legal Services Authority be informed. 3. It has been stated that petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.03.2003. The petitioner has been arrested in the case on wrong identification and he has nothing to do with the commission of offence. It has been stated that the name of the petitioner has not been stated in the FIR. The petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated. The charge against the petitioner has not been framed. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner is the only son of his parents. The father of the petitioner is suffering from rheumatic heart disease. The father of the petitioner has undergone major heart surgery. There is no- one to look after his ailing father. 4. The petitioner had applied for parole for looking after his ailing father which was rejected with the remarks that under-trial prisoner is not entitled for parole. The other cases against the petitioner have been decided by the trial Courts. The petitioner is unable to go on parole for looking after his ailing father. The parents of the petitioner have settled the marriage of the petitioner which is not possible unless petitioner is granted bail. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered against the petitioner on 19.03.2003 on the statement of Naresh Kumar,Warden, Kanda Jail. The challan was submitted in the Court on 04.02.2006. The case has been committed and now the next date is fixed on 22.12.2011. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 3 6. I have heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General representing State and have also gone through the record. 7. The learned Sessions Judge(F) rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 26.02.2011 on the ground that petitioner has been convicted in FIR No. 489/1999 under Sections 307, 302, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Una. The petitioner has also been convicted under Sections 307,353, 332, 109, 114, 34 IPC in FIR No. 537/2000 by Sessions Judge, Una. The petitioner has been convicted in FIR No. 69/2001 under Sections 353, 332, 342, 506, 34 IPC by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, has convicted the petitioner under Sections 223, 224 IPC in FIR No. 67/2002. 8. The learned Sessions Judge(F) has also observed that petitioner was accused in FIR No. 486/99 under Sections 326, 324,323, 148, 149 IPC, FIR No. 583/98 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, FIR No. 489/99 under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 323, 201, 120-B, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, FIR No. 537/2000 under Sections 307, 353, 34, 332, 114, 109 IPC, FIR No. 272/03 under Sections 365, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC, FIR No. 70/03 under Sections 395, 412, 120, 325 IPC read with Section 25 Arms Act, FIR No. 270/03 under Sections 395, 397, 120-B IPC, FIR No. 31/03 under Sections 379, 392 IPC, FIR No. 677/02 under Sections 222, 223,224 IPC, FIR No. 209/03 under Sections 393, 420, 465, 467, 412 IPC read with Section 25 Arms Act, FIR No. 40/03 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 123, 125 IPC read with Section 25 Arms Act and FIR No. 298/08 under Sections 353, 332, 506 IPC and 4 those matters are pending. This observation has been made on the basis of information supplied by Police Station, Nawanshehar, Punjab. There is nothing on record that this observation of learned Sessions Judge(F) is not correct. 9. In the application, it has been stated that marriage of the petitioner has been fixed by his parents, but neither the name of the bride nor particulars of her family have been given nor any future tentative date, month of the marriage has been disclosed. It has been stated that father of the petitioner is ailing, but it has also been stated that he has been operated upon for major heart surgery. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner cannot be released on parole as an under-trial. The learned Sessions has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses and a large number of cases are pending against him. In three cases, the petitioner has been convicted. Thus, the present case is not the only case which is under-trial. The petitioner is an under-trial in other cases also and , therefore, the contention of the petitioner that only the present case is pending trial is not correct. The petitioner keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case is not entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 11. In the status report, it has been stated that challan was submitted on 04.02.2006. The record indicates that case is adjourned for framing of charge on one ground or the other. The learned trial Court is directed to consider the framing of charge at an early date and thereafter record the prosecution evidence and complete the trial as early as 5 possible. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application. 12. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 24, 2011. (Krt)