IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) 954 of 2008. Reserved on 26-9-2008. Date of Decision: 29-9-2008 _______________________________________________________________ Neel Kanth. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Thakur ,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mrs Shubh Mahajan, Assistant Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J, The petitioner who is one of the co-accused, is seeking bail in F.I.R. No. 235 of 2008 dated 10-6-2008 registered under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station, Una, by moving this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have heard Shri M.S. Chandel, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have gone through the file of the investigation. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused party has constructed a house over a common path and they were trying to widen the path over the land of the complainant. This act of the accused was resisted by the complainant party. Both the parties Whether the reporters of local newspapers are allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. were already locked in litigation prior to the alleged incident. However, on 10-6-2008 when the accused persons were widening the path, the complainant party objected to it, thus a quarrel took place. The accused persons namely Pardeep Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Ram Krishan, Neelkanth petitioner Bhagwati Devi and Saroj Kumar gave beatings to Ram Kumar (deceased). Accused Pardeep Kumar is alleged to have given an axe blow on the head of Ram Kumar and accused Sandeep Kumar dealt a darat blow on him. Ram Kumar fell down and other accused persons gave fisticuffs and kick blows to him as well to his brother Raman Kumar. Many persons gathered on the spot and the accused party fled away. The injured was taken to the Regional Hospital, Una where he succumbed to his injuries. Raman Kumar, the brother of the deceased, lodged the F.I.R. The injured were medically examined and the post mortem of the body of the deceased was performed in the Hospital. The petitioner herein and Saroj Bala were arrested on 13.6.2008. The accused persons Pardeep Kumar and Sandeep Kumar had also sustained simple injuries. They also lodged the F.I. R. No. 236 of 2008 on the same day under Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Saroj Kumari was granted the bail by the Court of Sessions and Smt. Bhagwati Devi accused was granted bail by this Court. The release of the petitioner on bail is objected to by learned Assistant Advocate General on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence and has taken the law into his own hands. In case the bail is granted, he would browbeat the witnesses of the prosecution. On the perusal of the statements, recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, of Roshmi Devi on 11.6.2008, Sarwan Kumar on 12.6.2008 and Ramesh Chand Ward Panch recorded on 27.6.2008, show that the petitioner Neel Kanth and Saroj Bala accused, at the relevant time had proclaimed that it was a right opportunity to teach lesson to the complainant party and they be given good beatings. It is alleged that they along with other accused persons, gave beatings to the deceased and other witnesses. From these versions, their intention appears to be only to give good beatings to Ram Kumar. They did not instigate other co-accused to do away with his life. Thus a definite role is assigned to the present petitioner. On the same allegations, Saroj Bala was granted bail therefore on parity, the bail to the petitioner cannot be denied. Keeping in view the role played by the petitioner and the specific allegations against him and also the fact that the fight took place all of a sudden and prima facie it appears that it was not a pre-plan concert, the petitioner has a case for bail and he can be enlarged on bail by imposing the appropriate conditions so that the investigation of the case is not hampered with. Accordingly, the bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of rupees 20,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una and this bail shall be subject to further conditions : i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer and shall present in the Court, as and when required. ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or any Police officer; The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty of bail in any manner. In case he does so, the bail shall be cancelled. Any observation or reference made herein above is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition and it shall not affect the merit of this case in any manner. An authenticated copy of this order be sent forthwith, to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una for information and necessary action at his end. (Surinder Singh) Judge. September 29, 2008. (bm)