IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 936 of 2009 Date of decision: November 18, 2009. Upinder Saini …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl.A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 381 dated 16.10.2009 registered at Police Station, Una, under Sections 382, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he has committed no offence. The complainant is inimical towards the petitioner and, therefore, he has falsely implicated the petitioner. On 17.10.2009, the complainant gave beating to the petitioner and when petitioner went to lodge FIR, then instead of registering the case at the instance of petitioner, police falsely implicated the petitioner and one more person in the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… case. It has been submitted that in view of registration of the case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. 3. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General and on the basis of status report he has submitted that ear ring and a gold chain of the complainant are yet to be recovered. Mr. Bansal, has stated that petitioner has joined the investigation on 15.11.2009 but on 16.11.2009 the petitioner did not join the investigation. This submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated by the learned Addl. Advocate General that co-accused Sumit Kumar has been released on bail by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (3), Una on 26.10.2009. The learned Addl. Advocate General has also stated that on the basis of instructions received from Kuldip Singh, Head Constable No. 87 present in the court nobody has stated that ear ring and a gold chain were snatched by the petitioner. 4. The co-accused Sumit Kumar has already been released on bail. There is no definite material at this stage with the investigating agency who allegedly took away the ear ring and gold chain of the complainant. The petitioner was earlier admitted in the hospital as noticed in the order dated 7.11.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in …3… case FIR No. 381 dated 16.10.2009 registered at Police Station, Una, under Sections 382, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner 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 in any manner. 5. The observations made hereinabove are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. November 18, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.