IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.284 of 2008 Decided on: April 09, 2008. Hanif Mohammad …Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge( Oral): This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.9 dated 4.1.2008 registered at Police Station, Chamba under Section 302 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. Heard and perused the record. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the statement of Nek Chand, Tailor was recorded on 4.1.2008 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. According to Nek Chand, on 1.1.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. Dalip Kumar informed him on telephone that his brother Manoj Kumar had taken liquor and he is at taxi stand, Chamba. He asked the complainant to take Manoj Kumar at Scheduled Tribe Sarai (Inn) for his stay. Dalip Kumar also told the complainant that Gogu has told him on telephone that on mobile abuses were being given. On this, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… the complainant went to taxi stand Chamba and saw that Manoj Kumar was lying on the road and was not talking. Hanif petitioner was abusing him. Hanif asked the complainant that who is this man and how he is related to the complainant. He told Hanif that he is his brother. Hanif told him that he has set him right, now he is feigning. The complainant by lifting Manoj, took him to Scheduled Tribe Inn and laid him on the bed in a room. There was no visible injury on the person of Manoj. There was little scratch on his face. At about 10 p.m., the complainant tried to wake up Manoj Kumar but he was not responding. In the morning, he saw blood on the bed sheet where Manoj Kumar was laid by him in the room of inn, blood was also oozing out from the nose and mouth of Manoj Kumar. The complainant informed Dalip Kumar and on instructions of Dalip Kumar, Manoj was taken to hospital. The doctor on duty attended Manoj Kumar and he was admitted. In the meantime, Dalip also came there and the doctor referred Manoj Kumar to PGI Chandigarh and Manoj Kumar was taken to PGI Chandigarh but on 3.1.2008 complainant came to know that Manoj has died when he was being taken to PGI Chandigarh. The complainant has further stated that on 1.1.2008 at about 7.35 p.m. Manoj Kumar for some reason gave two slaps to Hanif and Hanif also slapped Manoj Kumar and thereafter by holding Manoj Kumar from head he struck him on the road which caused internal injuries to Manoj Kumar which caused his death. On this, case was registered under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 5.1.2008. On …3… completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court on 27.2.2008. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner belongs to respectable family and there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The investigation in the case is complete. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on 11.3.2008. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the respondent on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in a serious case and for that purpose the learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the material collected during investigation and on the statements of Nirmal Singh and Pradeep Kumar. I have gone through the record and statements of Nirmal Singh and Pradeep Kumar recorded during investigation under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. Pradeep Kumar and Nirmal Singh have stated that Manoj Kumar under the influence of liquor gave two slaps to Hanif and Hanif retaliated and gave two slaps to Manoj and thereafter he caught hold of Manoj Kumar from head and struck him against the road and head of Manoj Kumar struck against the road. Both of them separated Manoj from Hanif. They were in the process of lifting Manoj and in the meantime Nek Chand came there. Hanif asked Nek Chand how Manoj is related to him, Nek Chand told him that he is his brother. Nek Chand in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has not …4… named Pradeep Kumar and Nirmal Singh nor he has stated that when Manoj was lying on the road some persons were trying to lift him when he reached there. Nek Chand is not an eye witness to the fact that the petitioner allegedly caught hold Manoj Kumar and struck his head against the road. It is not the case of the prosecution that blood oozed out from the mouth, nose or ears of Manoj Kumar when his head was allegedly struck against the road. It is also not the case of the prosecution that when Manoj was lifted to Scheduled Tribe inn at that time also blood oozed out from his nose, mouth and ears. The blood was seen only next day. The prosecution case at the best is that some quarrel took place and in that quarrel petitioner struck head of Manoj Kumar against the road. No motive or previous enmity has been attributed to the petitioner. On the basis of material on record, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No.9 dated 4.1.2008 registered at Police Station, Chamba under Section 302 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. . April 09, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) …5…