IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 343 of 2008. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: 8.5.2008. Ajender Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). 2. This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007, under Sections 302, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Rekong Peo. The respondent has filed the status report. 3. Heard and perused the record. 4. The brief facts are that statement of Sanjay Kumar was recorded, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that on 12.8.2007 Surinder Kumar a friend of his brother Dalip Kumar came at their residence and in the meantime Dalip Kumar (Dipu) also came. Dipu was trying to vomit, but he could not vomit anything. On the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… asking of their mother, Dipu told that Ajender (petitioner) and his companions had given beatings to him and thereafter Dipu became unconscious. Dipu was taken to the residence of a doctor, who advised that he should be taken to hospital. Dipu was taken to hospital in unconscious condition, but he died during treatment. On this FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007 came to be registered. It has been alleged that petitioner was arrested on 14.8.2007, but this appears to be wrong inasmuch as in the status report the respondent has stated that petitioner was arrested on 6.9.2007 and since then he is in judicial custody. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the court and the charge has been framed, under Sections 302, 34 IPC. The case was lastly listed on 7.5.2008 but till now no evidence has been record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that statement of Anil Kumar was recorded, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and as per that statement, no case under Sections 302, 34 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this court in Cr.MP(M) No. 201/08 decided on 27.3.2008 has granted bail to Sushil Kumar and Rocky co-accused in FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007. He has submitted that for the purpose of bail, the case of the petitioner is similar to said Sushil Kumar and Rocky. 6. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that charge has been framed against the petitioner. He earlier filed an application being Cr.M.P.(M) No. 617 of 2007, which was dismissed by this court on 3.9.2007. There is …3… no change of circumstance and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. I have perused the order dated 3.9.2007 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 617 of 2007 which was passed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I have also gone through the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by this court in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 201 of 2008, which is fully applicable in the present case and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 68 dated 13.8.2007 registered at Police Station, Rekong Peo, District Kinnaur under Sections 302, 34 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Rampur with the conditions that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and terrorise any prosecution witnesses connected with the case. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. 8. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 8, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.