IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 433 of 2011. Date of decision: 4.8.2011. Asha ….. Applicant. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. D.S.Nainta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This application has been filed, under Section 439, Cr.P.C., for releasing the applicant on bail, in case FIR No. 66 of 2011, under Sections 307, 324, 506 IPC registered at Police Station, Rohru. The status report has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been arrested on 10.6.2011 in pursuance of complaint lodged by Smt. Rewati on the allegations that complainant had quarrel with the petitioner. The petitioner picked up “Draft” and tried to hit Smt. Rewati, who saved herself but “Draft” landed on her hand as a result complainant sustained injuries. It has been submitted that prosecution case is false. The petitioner is innocent, she has committed no offence. No recovery is to be made from her and she is Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… ready to abide by the terms of bail in case she is released on bail. It has also been stated that petitioner earlier filed an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the learned Fast Track Court, Shimla camp at Rohru on 10.6.2011. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General, who has submitted that petitioner attacked Smt. Rewati with deadly weapon. The victim saved herself otherwise she would have been killed but in the process the “Draft” landed on her left hand as a result of which complainant sustained serious cut injury on her left palm. The petitioner again tried to hit the victim on her head, but in the meantime the husband of the complainant intervened and saved her. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to bail in view of gravity of offence. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It has been stated by learned Addl. Advocate General that investigation in the case is complete, the challan has been submitted on 3.8.2011. The applicant was arrested on 10.6.2011 and since then she is in custody. The trial will take some time. No purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in detention for indefinite period. Section 437 Cr.P.C. gives special concession to women for bail in certain circumstances. The complainant has received injury on her palm. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 66/2011, dated 4.6.2011 under …3… Sections 307, 324, 506 IPC registered at Police Station, Rohru, on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate stationed at Rohru, subject to the conditions that applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 5. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti. August 4, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.