IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.411 of 2008 Decided on: May 16, 2008. Man Singh & Ors. …Petitioners. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners: Mr Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in F.I.R.No.1 dated 14.1.2008, registered at Police Station, Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Sanjay Kumar F.I.R. No.1 of 2008 was registered on 14.1.2008. During investigation, it has been established that petitioners on 13.1.2008 have murdered Dev Raj. The weapon of offence danda and pieces of rope, which was used to tie the arms and legs of Dev Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Raj, have also been recovered at the instance of petitioners. The petitioners on 13.1.2008 gave severe beatings to Dev Raj as a result of which he died. The doctor has given the certificate of cause of death on the post mortem report and according to the opinion of the doctor, the death occurred due to intracranial hemorrhage leading to compression of brain and death. The doctor by way of remarks on post mortem report has further noticed that haematoma over left side of scalp and intracranial hemorrhage over right hemisphere of brain. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the grand father of the deceased and petitioners No.2 and 3 are uncles of the deceased. The name of petitioners No.2 and 3 have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that investigation in the case is complete. The continuous custody of the petitioners is no longer required and, therefore, they may be released on bail. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that petitioners are deeply involved in the case. Injuries were found on the person of the deceased which have been reflected in the post mortem. The recoveries have been made from the petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the statement of Om Parkash, eye-witness, who has specifically stated that on 13.1.2008 petitioners and Dev Raj took liquor at about 8 P.M. in their house. The petitioners started abusing Dev Raj who was sleeping. Dev Raj later on got up and they started quarreling. All the petitioners tied the …3… hands and legs of Dev Raj with rope. The house of Om Parkash is adjacent to the house of Man Singh. He intervened but all the petitioners gave beatings to Dev Raj with danda and fist blows. They even threatened Om Parkash to leave the place otherwise they would also deal with him in the same manner. Later on Om Parkash came to know that Dev Raj had died. The learned Additional Advocate General has also relied on the statement of Sunita Devi, sister of Dev Raj, who has stated that Dev Raj used to demand his share in the property from his grand father, who used to refuse and for that reason he used to beat Dev Raj. The non mentioning of names of two petitioners in the F.I.R., as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not of much significance. The evidence collected during investigation points out the involvement of the petitioners in a serious offence. The petitioners earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on 5.3.2008. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for grant of bail to them. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 16, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)