IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.394 of 2010. Decided on: 7th May, 2010. ___________________________________________________________ Vijender Singh @ Viki ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP. ....Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Chawla, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) The petitioner was denied bail by the Court of Sessions, as such he approached this Court for his enlargement on bail by moving the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Report filed. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 25th June, 2009, under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, in FIR No.133 of 2009 dated 20th May, 2009, registered in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Police Station, Nalagarh, for allegedly committing the murder of Kripal Singh. 5. The prosecution story, in brief, can be stated thus. On 20th May, 2009 at about 6.40 a.m. the dead body of Kripal Singh was found lying on “Androla bridge” with gun shot injuries and his motorcycle No.HP-12B-0100 was also found parked nearby. For the last about 7-8 months the deceased was working in a Factory situated in village Khera. He used to come to the place of his work from his native place. On the day of alleged incident the deceased was on duty from 3.00 pm to 11.00 pm. He did not return during the night after finishing the duty. When his father went for the search he found his dead body near “Androla bridge”. His statement was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which FIR was recorded. The police interrogated various persons to find out the clues of the real culprits. Later they came to know that there was a landed disputed inter- se Sodhi Singh and the family of the deceased. It is alleged that Sodhi Singh had engaged Sanjeev alias Sanjay and Vikram Singh to finish Kripal Singh and for that he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.25,000/- were paid in advance and the balance was promised to be paid on finishing the task. - 3 - Co-accused Sanjeev and Virkam Singh were arrested. One country made 12 bore pistol alongwith one live cartridge was recovered from one of the accused persons and on their further interrogation the involvement of the present petitioner was also found there. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested. To link him, there is a statement of only Madan Lal recorded on 1st July, 2009. According to him, during the night when Kripal Singh was murdered before that he had seen 4/5 boys near “Androla bridge” with two motorcycles standing nearby and out of them one was petitioner, who was a taxi-driver. Next day, he came to know about the murder of Kripal Singh. After their arrest some boys including the petitioner were shown to him on 1st July, 2009 and he could identify the petitioner. This is the only evidence connecting him. 6. It is surprising as to why he did not report to the police immediately after coming to know about the murder of Kripal Singh and waited for about two months to disclose this fact to the police. Further on 29th June, 2009 the police recorded the statement of Jagir Singh alias Chhibar under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who is alleged to have identified the petitioner during the intervening night of 19th/20th May, 2009. According to him, when he was crossing from the - 4 - “Androla bridge” on his motorcycle he was stopped by 4/5 boys and was man-handled. Later he was released as one of them told that he was not the same person to whom they wanted to finish. But according to him, he also came to know about the murder on next day at the same place where the dead body was found but informed the police after about two months and 10 days of the said incident when the petitioner was arrested. 7. Challan has been presented and has been fixed for consideration of charge in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh. 8. In the instant case, except the statement of Madan Lal, there is no other evidence against him. However, for the present it is suffice to say that the petitioner has a case for bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. This bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall be present in the Court on the aforesaid date where the case is pending trial and thereafter he - 5 - shall present himself on each and every date of hearing in the said case; (b) shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and (c) shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 9. In case the petitioner shall make breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the liberty of his bail shall be cancelled. 10. Any expression or observations made heretofore, shall not affect the merits of the case, as it is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition. 11. Let an authenticated copy be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan for his information and necessary action at his end. 12. In case parties apply for the urgent copy of this order, it be supplied to them as per law. 13. The petition stands disposed of. Cr.M.P. No. 311 of 2010. Allowed. May 7, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)