IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 575 of 2011 Date of decision: 04.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Vinay Kumar and others ….. Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant A.G. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the applicants on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.142/2011 dated 9.7.2011, registered at Police Station West Shimla for offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 & 452 IPC. The Status report has been filed, the record perused. 2. It has been submitted by applicants that according to the prosecution story, the complainant constable Karan Singh, his brother Arun and constable Sanjeev were going to a shop for purchasing articles. At that time applicant No.5 came driving his motorcycle No.HP-63-3475 and struck against constable Karan Singh who asked the applicant No.5 whether he would run over him. On this, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… altercation took place and applicant No.5 started beating constable Karan Singh, who was saved by his brother and constable Sanjeev Kumar. It has been alleged that complainant, Arun Kumar, constable Sanjeev went to the room of constable Amit Dhiman. The applicant No.5 came with 4/5 persons in the room of Amit Dhiman and started beating constable Karan Singh with kicks and fists. The complainant fled away from there in the jungle but the assailants kept on searching the complainant but they could not trace him. Thereafter the matter was reported to the Police. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that entire prosecution story is false. He has submitted that no recovery is to be made from the applicants. The investigation in the case is almost complete. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants will abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order, in case they are released on bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the applicants are not entitled to bail in as much as they have not even spared constable. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to find out the real truth. The applicants have taken the law in their own hands; they are not entitled to bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been stated in the status report that earlier bail applications of applicants were dismissed by learned Fast Track Court, Shimla but after obtaining interim bail from the High Court they have joined the investigation. The applicants have handed …3… over the motorcycle No.HP-63-3475 along with key and papers which have been taken into possession. It has also been stated that no recovery is to be made from the applicants and the investigation in the case is complete. There is no allegation in the status report that applicants are not co-operating in the investigation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case the custodial interrogation of the applicants and their detention is not necessary in the present case. The applicants have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.142/2011 dated 9.7.2011, registered at Police Station West Shimla for offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 & 452 IPC on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, with the condition that the applicants shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. August 4, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge. …4… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.570 of 2011. Date of decision: 3.8.2011. Rajesh @ Pinku ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) For judgment, see judgment rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.559 of 2011, titled as Roshan Lal vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. August 3, 2011 (sks) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?