IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.284 of 2009. Date of decision: 1.5.2009 Om Parkash ………. 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. Vishal Panwar , Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No.106, registered on 13.11.2008 at Police Station, Kandaghat under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. Heard, status report dated 30.4.2009 perused from the police file. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.11.2008 an information was received at police post, Sairi that a dead body was lying in Bhodan forest. The Incharge, Police Post along with others reached the spot and found that on road Ravinda Dumehar to Mamleeg near Bhodan forest, a dead body of male was lying 70/80 feet below the road. The dead body was sent to Referral Hospital, Solan on 10.11.2008. On 11.11.2008 Amar Dutt identified the dead body at Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Referral Hospital, Solan to be of his brother Prem Dutt. The doctor at Solan referred the dead body for post mortem on 11.11.2008 to IGMC, Shimla and postmortem was conducted on 11.11.2008 at Shimla, Viscera along with clothes found on the dead body were sent to FSL for chemical examination. 3. On 13.11.2008, Amar Dutt accompanied with Laj Kishore Sharma and Vijay Kumar reported at police station that his brother Prem Dutt was at his home on 6.11.2008 and had proceeded to bring paints for white washing of his house. At about 10 O’clock some body rang on his mobile and soon thereafter he went in his Maruti Car bearing registration No.HP-15-7802. At about 6.15 p.m. the complainant rang him on his phone and he was at Parwanoo and told that very likely he would not come to his house on that date. Thereafter the complainant again tried to contact him but his mobile was switched off. He was searched on 7.11.2008 in the ilaqua and in the relations but neither he nor his car was traced. The complainant on 8.11.2008 lodged missing report of his brother at Police Post Garkhal. On 10.11.2008 from Police Post, Garkhal a telephone call was received, asking some identification of his brother. The complainant disclosed some identification marks of his brother and police told that a dead body matching such identification was found in the ilaqua of police post, Sairi. 4. The parts of burnt car were taken into possession in three packets along with burnt car. The burnt car matched with the car of Prem Dutt. One T-shirt smeared with blood was found near the car which was also taken into possession by incharge, Police Post, Kuthar. On 11.11.2008 pieces of wires of burnt car were taken into possession. Mobile phone call details of several persons including Om Parkash petitioner were obtained. 3 5. Vijay Kumar uncle (Chacha) of deceased Prem Dutt had disclosed that about 3-4 months earlier Om Parkash had threatened Prem Dutt that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife and he would kill him. It was established during investigation that on 6.11.2008 accused Nirmala Devi was found sitting in the car of Prem Dutt near Garkhal ( Moti Corner) and they reached Sanwara via Garkhal. The accused Nirmala remained in contact with Om Parkash and Prem Dutt during this period. Om Parkash and Parmanand followed them. At Sanwara, they gave beatings to the deceased. Om Parkash had maruti car bearing registration No.HR-03-2290 which he parked at Dharampur. They put Prem Dutt in his own car and took him from Sanwara to Mamleeg and reached Bhodan forest. They took out Prem Dutt from the car and again gave him beatings and threw him from the road as a result of which Prem Dutt died. They returned in the car of the deceased at Dharampur. Om Parkash, in his own car, Parmanand and Nirmala Devi in the car of the deceased went to isolated place near Bandh within the area of police post Kuthar where they burnt the car of the deceased. Thereafter Om Parkash and Parmanand dropped Nimala Devi in the morning at Kuthar and themselves went to their respective homes. The accused were arrested on 26.11.2008. 6. The accused Parmanand made a disclosure statement and got recovered mobile phone of Prem Dutt as well as his wrist watch and a card. On 28.11.2008, the accused made disclosure statements to identify place where beatings were given to Prem Dutt and thereafter he was thrown and his car was burnt. The accused Om Parkash is the main accused who conspired with accused Nirmala Devi and Parmanand. It has been stated that after completion of the investigation the challan was presented on 20.2.2009. 4 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has committed no offence. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 5 months. The accused Nirmala Devi has been bailed out by this court on 6.2.2009. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the direction of t this Court. 8. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is the main accused who conspired to kill Prem Dutt. The petitioner suspected that Prem Dutt had illicit relation with his wife and for that reason with the help of two other accused petitioner committed murder of Prem Dutt and thereafter he along with other two accused destroyed the evidence. It has been submitted that Om Parkash can influence the witnesses, lastly it was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he suspected that Prem Dutt had illicit relations with his wife and for that reason 3-4 months prior to the incident he had threatened Prem Dutt that he would kill him. During investigation mobile phone calls details of accused were obtained and it was found that they remained in contact with one another at the relevant time. On some mobile phone calls were exceptionally high. According to prosecution Om Parkash is the main conspirator for the commission of the offence. The petitioner cannot take benefit of bail granted to Nirmala Devi. The fact that Nirmala Devi is a woman was taken into consideration when she was released on bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan on 5 10.3.2009 after the filing of the challan. There is no change of circumstance, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for releasing him on bail. Resultantly, bail application is dismissed. 10. 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. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge May 1, 2009 (sks)