IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 347 of 2008. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: 8.5.2008. Ravish Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). 2. This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007, under Sections 302, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Rekong Peo. The respondent has filed the status report. 3. Heard and perused the record. 4. The brief facts are that statement of Sanjay Kumar was recorded, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that on 12.8.2007 Surinder Kumar a friend of his brother Dalip Kumar came at their residence and in the meantime Dalip Kumar (Dipu) also came. Dipu was trying to vomit, but he could not vomit anything. On the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… asking of their mother, Dipu told that Ajender and his companions had given beatings to him and thereafter Dipu became unconscious. Dipu was taken to the residence of a doctor, who advised that he should be taken to hospital. Dipu was taken to hospital in unconscious condition, but he died during treatment. On this FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007 came to be registered. The petitioner was arrested on 6.9.2007. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court and the charge has been framed, under Sections 302, 34 IPC. The case was lastly listed on 7.5.2008 but till now no evidence has been recorded. 5. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner filed pre- arrest bail application in this court, which was rejected on 3.9.2007 and thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the police. It has been submitted that even as per prosecution case, it can be safely inferred that petitioner did not give blow of bottle on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him. The petitioner is not guilty of an offence, punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life. At the most even as per the case of the prosecution, it is a case of sudden fight where blows were exchanged. The petitioner is not going to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General and has submitted that petitioner has been specifically named in the evidence collected during investigation. The petitioner gave bottle blow on the head of Dalip Kumar (Dipu) and as a result of which he died. The charge has already been framed against the petitioner, under Section 302 IPC. …3… The petitioner has committed serious offence and therefore, he is not entitled to bail. 7. I have gone through the case file. At this stage it cannot be said that petitioner is not involved in serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, rather it has come in evidence collected during investigation that petitioner gave bottle blow on the head of Dalip Kumar (Dipu), as a result of which he died. The role played by other co-accused in the commission of offence at this stage cannot be said to be so serious. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. May 8, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.