IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 666, 667, 668, 669 and 702 of 2011. Date of decision: 6.9.2011. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 666 of 2011. Hari Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 667 of 2011. Rijay Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 668 of 2011. Nisha Kumari …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 4. Cr.MP(M) No. 669 of 2011. Vijay Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 5. Cr.MP(M) No. 702 of 2011. Arjun Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the petitioners : Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This judgement shall dispose of Cr.M.P. (M) No. 666, 667, 668, 669 and 702 of 2011, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which have arisen out of FIR No. 101 of 2011 dated 20.8.2011, registered at Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes …2… Police Station, Bhawarna, District Kangra, under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 323, 382, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In Cr.MP(M) Nos. 666, 667, 668 and 669 of 2011 notice was issued on 26.8.2011 and these petitions are listed today. In Cr.MP(M) No. 702 of 2011, the petitioner has surrendered in the court. In other petitions also, the petitioners have surrendered in the court on 26.8.2011. In view of Karam Dass and others vs. State of H.P. 1995 (1) SLC 363, the petitioners can be stated to be in judicial custody when they have surrendered in the court and submitted to the directions of the court. Cr.MP(M) No. 702 of 2011 is based on same facts and the police file is available, therefore, this petition has also been taken up for disposal today. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 666 of 2011, which has been perused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 666, 667, 668 and 669 of 2011 are also present in the court and they have been identified by their counsel. 2. It has been stated by the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Smt. Kamni Devi complainant. The petitioners are innocent and they have committed no offence. They are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. No recovery is to be made from them. They have prayed for bail. 3. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been …3… stated in the status report that case has been registered at the instance of Kamni Devi, who reported that her husband is physically challenged and she looks after her property. On 20.8.2011 at about 12.00 o’clock during day time, she had gone alongwith her driver Shinty and one labourer on her land situate at Darang. In the meantime, Arjun, Rikay, Hari Singh and four-five more and some women as well as daughter, son of Malay etc. tress-passed over her land. She asked from them the reason of tress-passing. On this, they started beating her with Danda as well as kicks and fist blows and threw her on the ground. They called her by caste. They proclaimed that they would create road for crossing heavy vehicles through her land and they would see what she and her husband would do. They snatched her gold chain, ear rings, nose ring which they took away with them. She sustained injuries on different parts of her body and became unconscious. She was saved by her driver and labourer. The accused ran away from the place after threatening the complainant. They openly said that they would kill the complainant. She informed the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Darang, who advised her to report the matter to the police. 4. It has been stated that complainant was got medically examined. The doctor has opined that complainant has suffered simple injuries. Some implements were taken into possession, the clothes of the complainant were also taken into possession. The statements of witnesses were recorded. In the status report, it has been stated that during investigation commission of offence, under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) X of Scheduled Castes …4… and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been established. No case against Vijay Kumar and Nisha Kumari has been established till now during investigation. The accused Arjun Singh has absconded. It has not been stated in the status report that any recovery is to be made from the petitioners nor it has been stated that petitioners other than Arjun Singh are not cooperating in the investigation. In so far as accused Arjun Singh is concerned, nothing has been stated that for what purpose his custodial interrogation is required. 5. I have considered the rival contentions made on either side. It has been stated that offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been established. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail in their favour in FIR No. 101 of 2011 dated 20.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Bhawarna, District Kangra, under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 323, 382, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6. In view of above, all the petitions being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 666, 667, 668, 669 and 702 of 2011 are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 101 of 2011 dated 20.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Bhawarna, District Kangra, under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 323, 382, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of …5… Atrocities) Act, 1989 on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Dy. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court during the course of the day today with the conditions that petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner. In case petitioners fail to furnish bail bonds, as directed above, then defaulting petitioner(s) shall be taken into custody. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti. September 6, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.