1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1.Cr.MP(M) No.718 of 2008. 2.Cr.MP(M) No.719 of 2008 3.Cr.MP(M) No.720 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.7.2008. 1.Cr.MP(M) No,718 of 2008 Devi Singh Vs. State of H.P. 2.Cr.MP(M) No.719 of 2008 Jagdish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 3. Cr.MP(M) No.720 of 2008 Palas Ram Vs. State of H.P. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja , Advocate. ( in all petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ( In all petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This order shall dispose of bail petitions being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 718, 719 and 720 of 2008, which have arisen out of FIR 189 registered on 15.5.2008 at Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur under Sections 306, 34 IPC. The respondent has filed status report. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. Head and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that statement of complainant Mehar Singh was recorded on 15.5.2008 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He has stated that his younger brother Kaul Dass had retired as Superintendent in the year 2003 from the Electricity Board, his brother was married to Savitri Devi about 35 years ago and he had constructed double storey house at village Danoh. The said brother of the complainant had kept another woman Vidya Devi. Savitri Devi and Vidya Devi were not having good relations, therefore, Savitri Devi had gone to her parent’s house at Hamirpur. Kaul Dass had no issue from his both wives. Vidya Devi was living with Kaul Dass at village Danoh. Kaul Dass had adopted Narender Kaur as his daughter. Vidya Devi used to ridicule, ill-treat and beat Kaul Dass. Vidya Devi oftenly used to ask Kaul Dass to transfer his money, house and other properties in her favour. He has stated that due to cruel behaviour of Vidya Devi, her brother Kaul Dass has committed suicide. On the basis of statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., case was registered. During investigation it has come that the Kaul Dass had committed suicide by hanging. The house of the deceased was searched and from there a suicide note of Kaul Dass was recovered. In the suicide note the deceased had narrated ill-treatment which was given to him by the petitioners. During investigation petitioners were found to have committed offence under Sections 306,34 IPC and they were arrested on 15.5.2007. The questioned handwriting and signature on the suicide note were found to be of the same person who had written and signed the admitted handwriting and 3 signature. The doctor has given opinion that the deceased had died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The petitioners had ealier filed bail applications which were rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 16.6.2000. The investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted for scrutiny. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The case against petitioners has been concocted. The prosecution story is unbelievable. The investigation in the case is complete. No purpose will be served for detaining the petitioners for indefinite period. The trial of the case will take some time. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the bail applications of the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned Addl Advocate General has opposed the bail applications. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Investigating Agency has recovered suicide note of the deceased. The perusal of the suicide note would show that the deceased was being ill-treated and he wanted to place on record why he was committing suicide. I do not want to comment on the suicide note but as per prosecution case the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The doctor has also opined that deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The deceased in the suicide note has named the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners on 16.6.2008. There is no change of circumstance. The offence under Section 306 IPC is 4 punishable for a term which may extend 10 years. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have failed to make out case for grant of bail at this stage, accordingly all petitions rejected. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge July 22, 2008 (sks)