IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 32 of 2009 Date of decision: February 6, 2009. Gurpreet Singh Rana & ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. & Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the respondent. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 16 of 2009 dated 18.1.2009 registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 307, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that complainant party had given beatings to the petitioners and an FIR No. 17 of 2009 to this effect has been registered at Police Station, Nalagarh. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that many people had gathered at public fair in which game of wrestling was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… going on. The complainant party attacked the petitioners and many people gathered there and started beating each other. The petitioners were not the aggressors rather complainant party was the aggressor. The case against the petitioners is false. The petitioners due to registration of case apprehend their arrest. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, who have joined the investigation pursuant to the directions given by this court on 21.1.2009 and 30.1.2009. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General. It has been submitted that petitioners and others attacked the complainant party with knife, rod and danda etc. and caused injuries. The other three accused are in judicial custody and out of them one Karnail Singh has filed application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in this court for bail. It has been submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and recoveries are also to be made from them. The petitioners are likely to tamper the prosecution evidence, if they are released on bail. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Manish Kumar, who has named Raghuvinder Singh, Resham Singh, Romi, Taraspreet. He has also stated that Dilbagh Singh was also present on the spot. Raghuvinder Singh attacked him (Manish) with knife, Romi was having danda and Resham was having …3… an iron pipe with him. There were other boys also whom he can recognize. The aforesaid four persons attacked Dilbagh Singh also. 5. The complainant has not named petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Singh in the FIR. In the status report, it has been stated that screw-driver and pipe have been recovered but knife from Raghuvinder Singh, danda from Gurpreet Singh and another iron pipe from Resham Singh are to be recovered. The first version was given by Manish in the form of his statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR was registered. In the FIR, petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Singh has not been named. As per FIR, petitioner No. 3 Resham Singh was having an iron pipe with him. In the FIR, it has not been made very clear on which part of body of Manish or Dilbagh Singh, petitioner Resham Singh gave blows with iron pipe. The allegations against petitioner No. 2 are serious. He attacked the injured with knife, which is yet to be recovered. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner No. 2 Raghuvinder Singh is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage, whereas petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Singh and petitioner No. 3 Resham Singh have made out a case for grant of bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail application of petitioner No. 2 Raghuvinder Singh is dismissed and bail application of petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Singh and petitioner No. 3 Resham Singh is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners No. 1 and 3 in case FIR No. 16 of 2009 dated 18.1.2009 registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 307,34 IPC, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal …4… bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. 8. Copy dasti. February 6, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Vacation Judge.