IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.333 of 2008. Date of decision: 9.4.2008 Vijay Kumar ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.23 of 2008 dated 23.2.2008 registered at Police Station, East Shimla under Sections 341,353,332, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that Manohar Lal driver of vehicle No.HP-07A-0201 had submitted a written complaint that on 23.2.2008, he was returning after dropping Additional S.P. (R & T), a Gypsy No.UA-01-0404 came from Kasumpti Bazar side in high speed, he at once applied brakes, 3-4 persons came out of the Gypsy and gave him beatings. He sustained Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 injuries, action be taken against them. He can recognize the persons who gave the beatings. The incident took place at about 9.30 pm. After giving beatings to him all of them ran away from the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that during investigation it has come on record that Satish Kumar and Vijay Kumar quarreled with Manohar Lal on 23.2.2008 while the complainant was on duty. The Gypsy is still to be recovered and other accused involved in the case are to be identified. In status report at one place Gypsy number is given UA-01-0404 and at other place UA-04- 0404. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The FIR was registered on 23.2.2008. The Gypsy is not owned by the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that owner of the vehicle is somewhere from Rohru. The police till now could very well interrogate the owner of the Gypsy so as to find out who was driving the vehicle at the relevant date and time and who other persons were the occupants of the vehicle. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious case having beaten public servant while discharging official duty and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail. In the status report it has been submitted that 3-4 persons gave beatings to complainant but it is the case of the prosecution that during investigation it has come on record that Satish Kumar and Vijay Kumar quarreled with Manohar Lal complainant on 23.2.2008. The petitioner has joined the investigation. The petitioner is not the owner of the Gypsy and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under 3 Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by Arresting Officer in FIR No.23 of 2008 dated 23.2.2008 registered at Police Station, East Shimla under Sections 341,353,332, 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to attend the investigation as and when called by the Investigating office, he shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 5. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh) Judge April 9, 2008 (sks)