Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.313 of 2010 Dated of Decision: April 22, 2010. Rakesh Kumar …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Sharma and Mr.Y. Paul, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was denied bail by the Court of Sessions in FIR No.216 of 2009 dated 22nd August, 2009, registered with Police Station, Solan, under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, as such he applied for the bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this court. Notice of application was given to the respondent. Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General put in appearance and filed report and objected to the bail of the petitioner as he was connected with the double murdered case of Shri Ramesh Sood and his wife Smt. Uma Sood. Precisely, prosecution case is that the dead bodies of Ramesh Sood and Uma Sood were found at their residence at Solan. The police visited the spot, conducted the inquiry under 2 Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some observations and recoveries were made from the spot and prepared the inquest papers. Dead bodies were sent for autopsy. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination. During the inquiry, it was found that the two mobile phones of Nokia make pertaining to the deceased persons were also missing alongwith its sim-cards. It was a case of blind murder. During the investigation, it came to light that the main accused Som Dutt was working as a carpenter during the construction of the house of the deceased. Deceased persons apprehended that he had misappropriated/ committed theft of some woods, which were to be used in the construction work. Thus, the plainer (machine) of Som Dutt accused was withheld by them, without which Som Dutt accused, found it difficult to do his job. During the interrogation, police detected that one of mobile phones of the deceased was being used by one Bhupinder Singh, brother of the main accused Som Dutt by using another sim-card. Thus police nabbed him and reached to the main accused. During his interrogation, the involvement of the petitioner was also found. Both of them is alleged to have hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of the aforesaid persons in case the deceased would not return his machine. The murder is alleged to have been committed in a planned manner. Death was opined to be by poisoning and gagging/smothering. Police during investigation also found that four gold bangles, a pair of gold Tops, two gold rings were also missing. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the main accused, Tops and ornaments converted into gold were also recovered from Satya Prakash Jeweller, in Middle Bazzar, Shimla. The Tops were identified to be that of Smt. Uma Sood (deceased). The present 3 petitioner got recovered two sim-cards of the mobile phones of the deceased persons, pursuant to his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is also a statement of the barber, who was working near the premises, where the main accused had worked as a carpenter. According to him, on the day of alleged incident, the petitioner and the main accused had consumed liquor. Their presence was noted near the vicinity and it was around 8 p.m., the aforesaid murders were allegedly committed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that in the instant case, there is no clinching evidence whether the deceased persons had died because of smothering or by consuming poison, therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for causing the murder of the aforesaid persons. But however, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the recovery, having been effected by the petitioner with respect to two sim-cards of the mobile phones used by the deceased and further that he had pointed out the place of committing the murder, the petitioner stands fully connected with the heinous offence. What value should be attached to the evidence is a mater of trial. Therefore, the bail is not available to him. As such, the application for grant of bail is dismissed. April 22, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.