IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1028 of 2009 Date of decision : 3.12.2009. Sunil Kumar alias Sonu …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to petitioner in FIR No. 60 of 2009 dated 19.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Dehra, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped into the alleged offence. The investigation carried out so far has clearly established that the petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the other co-accused. The challan has already been ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 presented in the Court. As such, there is no likelihood of influencing or terrorizing the witnesses or the persons connected with the case. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala which has been dismissed on 21.11.2009 No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in jail. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that there is enough material on record to establish that the petitioner and co-accused Dinesh Sharma have committed the offence. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the post mortem report, disclosure statement of petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, statement of Deepak Singh alias Goldy, F.S.L. reports and other material and has submitted that petitioner and co-accused Dinesh Sharma have committed the offence. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to begin with it was a case of accidental death but under pressure the police has falsely implicated the petitioner. He has submitted that the police case now proceeded on the line that deceased Rajiv Sharma had relations with one woman Vandana and lateron co-accused Dinesh Sharma had also developed 3 relations with that woman. As a result of which, both the accused committed the offence. He has submitted that it is not understandable why petitioner should commit the offence. He has also submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.5.2009 but till the end of May, 2009 no one came forward to point out accusing finger towards petitioner. He has submitted that petitioner has been implicated falsely in the case. 5. On 2.6.2009 the mother of the deceased disclosed that deceased had some altercation with Dinesh Sharma a few days back. It has been stated by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General that on 7.6.2009 witness Madan Sharma had stated that on the date of occurrence during night both accused and one person were seen together taking liquor at Nehran Pukhar. On 10.6.2009, Deepak Singh alias Goldy eye witness had seen both the accused giving beatings to deceased. Deepak Singh alias Goldy has also got recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 10.6.2009. On 13.6.2009 petitioner made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for identifying the place in the inn where Rajiv Sharma alias Vicky was murdered. The petitioner got identified the room in the inn. The prosecution case is that petitioner and co-accused Dinesh Sharma had murdered deceased Rajiv Sharma. It cannot be said that there is no material on record that petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of offence. At this stage without elaborating more, it is enough to say that Deepak Singh alias Goldy has stated regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. The petitioner has made 4 disclosure statement and identified the place of occurrence. On receipt of report from F.S.L. Junga on 31.10.2009 challan has been filed in the Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala has dismissed the bail application of the petitioner on 21.11.2009. The present bail application was filed on 25.11.2009. There is no change of circumstance. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 3, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.