IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.38 of 2009 Decided on: February 06, 2009. Nirmala Devi …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Virender S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.106/2008 dated 13.11.2008 registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. The status report has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the commission of the offence at the instance of some interested persons who are inimical towards her. The petitioner is innocent. There is no legal evidence on record connecting Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The petitioner has been implicated in the case merely on the basis of suspicion having no legal foundation. She has been implicated on the basis of telephonic calls given to the deceased on his mobile phone by the petitioner from her mobile phone. The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Nauki, Tehsil Kasauli. The investigation in the case is complete. The custody of the petitioner for indefinite period is not required. There is no chance of the petitioner fleeing away from the justice. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. The application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that involvement of the petitioner has been established in the commission of the offence in the investigation. All the three accused conspired together for the commission of the offence. The deceased Prem Dutt left his home on 06.11.2008 and his dead body was found on 10.11.2008, which was identified by his brother Amar Dutt on 11.11.2008. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.11.2008. On the basis of statement of Amar Dutt, the case was registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, on 13.11.2008. 4. It has come in the investigation that the deceased left his home on 06.11.2008 in his Maruti Car …3… No.HP-15-7802. A burnt car was found on 07.11.2008 within the jurisdiction of Police Post, Kuthar. This car was lateron found to be of deceased Prem Dutt. During investigation, it was found that deceased Prem Dutt was having Mobile Phone No.98163-64779, the petitioner Mobile Phone No.94182-46916, Om Prakash accused Mobile Phone No.98052-29074 and Parma Nand accused Mobile Phone No.98173-91290. The call details of these mobile phones were taken and during investigation, it was found that the accused and deceased used their respective mobile phones at the relevant date and time. Mr. Vijay Kumar, uncle of the deceased, had stated that Om Prakash accused had threatened to kill deceased Prem Dutt three-four months prior to the incident on the ground that deceased Prem Dutt had illicit relations with his wife. On 06.11.2008, the petitioner was found accompanying the deceased near Garkhal in the car. During this period she remained in contact with Om Prakash and Parma Nand accused, who followed the deceased and the petitioner. They gave beatings to the deceased at Sanwara. Om Prakash accused parked his car No.HR-03-2290 at Dharampur. They took deceased Prem Dutt in his own vehicle from Sanwara to Subathu road via Dharampur and reached Mamleeg and ultimately went to Bodhan forest. They took out deceased Prem Dutt from the car and gave him beatings and threw …4… him from one side of the road down below which caused his death. They lateron came back to Dharampur in the car of the deceased. Om Prakash accused left Dharampur in his own car, Parma Nand and petitioner again boarded the car of the deceased and took the car at an isolated place near Bandh and burnt the car. Om Parkash and Parma Nand accused, in the morning left the petitioner at Kuthar. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of mobile phone calls which she had with the other accused on the relevant date and time. No eye witness has been pointed out by the prosecution who has actually seen petitioner throwing deceased Prem Dutt from the road along with other accused. It has not been pointed out for what reason the petitioner joined the other two accused for commission of such a serious offence. There is no allegation that petitioner wanted to take some revenge with the deceased or she participated in the commission of the offence with some other motive. I am not purposely dilating more on the matter so that it may not cause prejudice to either side. On the basis of material on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a woman, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is …5… ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R.No.106/2008 dated 13.11.2008 registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence and terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, as prayed. February 06, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (YSC) Vacation Judge