IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.37 of 2009 Decided on: February 05, 2009. Amir Khan …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Bhushan vice Mr.Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in F.I.R.No.14/2009 dated 11.1.2009 registered at Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, under Sections 353, 332/34 I.P.C. The status report has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of complaint lodged by Jitender Kumar Constable. The petitioner is not connected with the commission of offence. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude, Fast Tract Court, Hamirpur, on 21.01.2009. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the direction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. The application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence by giving beatings to Jitender Kumar Constable who was on duty. It has been contended that the petitioner and his friend misbehaved with Jitender Kumar Constable and the petitioner even torn the uniform of Jitender Kumar. The vehicle No.DL-6C-B-3503 involved in the case is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is a criminal minded person and as many as nine cases were registered against him in the past. The petitioner has joined the investigation but he is not disclosing the name of other accused who assisted him in the commission of offence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the relevant date the petitioner and his wife were going in his own car but not in vehicle No.DL-6C-B-3503 and at that time Jitender Kumar misbehaved with them. The petitioner even approached the police authorities for registration of the …3… case but instead of registering the case against Jitender Kumar, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Later on, the petitioner filed a complaint and under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. an F.I.R. No.40/2009 dated 3.2.2009 has been registered against Jitender Kumar at Police Station, Hamirpur. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that except for his wife no other person was with him at the relevant date and time. The police is repeatedly seeking time to trace out the particulars of vehicle No.DL-6C-B-3503 but till date no such car has been traced out. 5. It is for the police to find out who was the alleged other accused with the petitioner at the relevant date and time more particularly when the petitioner is denying that at that time only his wife was with him. The case was registered on 11.1.2009 and till now the police could not find out the particulars of vehicle No.DL-6C-B-3503. The petitioner except for one case, in all the cases, as per list, has either been acquitted or the cases have been compromised. The law will take its own course regarding the case which is pending against the petitioner at present. The petitioner has joined the investigation. 6. 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. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in F.I.R.No.14/2009 …4… dated 11.1.2009 registered at Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur under Sections 353, 332/34 IPC, the petitioner 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 the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 7. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. February 05, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (YSC) Vacation Judge