IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.894 & 895 of 2007 Decided on: March 31, 2008. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No.894/2007: Joginder Singh …Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. ….Respondent. ____________________________________________________ 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No.895/2007: Satpal Singh …Petitioner VERSUS State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners: Ms Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This order shall dispose of two bail applications being Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.894 and 895 of 2007 filed by petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in F.I.R.No.114 dated 5.4.2007, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. The respondent has filed the reply in both the petitions. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 5.4.2007 at about 8.20 a.m. an unknown person Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… intimated Police Station, Paonta Sahib telephonically that a dead body is lying near Bangala Colony. On this information, ASI Joginder Singh visited the spot and recorded the statement of Raghubir Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Raghubir Singh has stated that on 5.4.2007 at about 9 a.m. he came to know that Ram Singh, Chowkidar has died and his dead body is lying in the outskirts of farm house of Harpreet Singh, owner of the farm house. He informed Harpreet Singh who reached the spot, where police was already present. On the examination of the dead body, clotted blood was found in the mouth and nostrils of the deceased and a danda was also found on the spot. On the basis of statement of Raghubir Singh, F.I.R. No.114 was registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib on 5.4.2007. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. The doctor has opined probable cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to spleenic injury and DV perforation. It has come in the investigation that Kamlesh and Shivani had seen the petitioners along with other persons taking liquor with the deceased on the spot. After a short while they heard some noises and saw the petitioners and other two persons beating the deceased with fist blows and danda. The petitioners were arrested on 6.4.2007. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that charge has been framed against both the petitioners and now the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 7.4.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per challan filed against the petitioners, no case under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out against both the petitioners. At the most, it is …3… a case of some quarrel. The petitioners are in custody for the last about one year. They are residents of Poanta Sahib and they will comply with the bail order in case they are released on bail. The challan has already been filed in the Court and, therefore, there is no question of petitioners’ obstructing the investigation in any manner in case they are released on bail. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that both the petitioners are involved in a serious case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Kamlesh Kumari and Shivani witnesses have named both the petitioners for committing the offence. Both the petitioners made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and identified the place where they took liquor in the farm house of Harpreet Singh. It has come in investigation that 2, 3 days prior to the incident Joginder Singh’s cow went in the field of Harpreet Singh, on this deceased Ram Singh misbehaved with the wife of Joginder Singh. Both the petitioners have filed bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur which have been dismissed on 6.11.2007. There is no change of circumstance, rather the charge has been framed against both the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in the case. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for releasing them on bail, hence, both the applications are dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 31, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) …4…