IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1117 of 2009 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1118 of 2009 Date of decision : 7.1.2010 ____________________________________________________________ 1. Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ 2. Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2009 has been filed by Rakesh Kumar and Cr.MP(M) No.1118 of 2009 has been filed by Rajinder Kumar under Section 439 Cr.P.C for releasing them on bail in FIR No.182 of 2009 dated 8.7.2009 registered at Police station, Palampur under Sections 302, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. In Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2009, it has been submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case . Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 The investigation in the case is complete and therefore custody of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. It has been submitted that even the challan has been submitted in the court. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 5.12.2009. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2009. 4. In Cr.MP(M) No.1118 of 2009 more or less similar grounds have been raised by the petitioner for releasing him on bail. It has also been submitted that petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1118 of 2009 had also filed bail application which was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 5.12.2009. 5. The bail applications have been opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General on the grounds that petitioners have committed serious offence. The case was registered on the basis of statement of Om Parkash recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Kamlesh younger brother of the complainant told the complainant on 7.7.2009 at about 10 P.M. that Amarjit alias Bablu had been given beatings at hand pump and he was injured. The complainant went to the hand pump and saw Bablu standing near the hand pump. Rajinder was also standing nearby hand pump, holding a hockey stick in his hand, another boy was also standing near to Rajinder but the second boy had ran away from the spot. The complainant asked Bablu who gave him beatings; Bablu told him that he had been given beatings by Rajinder Kumar and the boy standing nearby with hockey. The blood 3 was oozing out from the head of Bablu and the blood had also fallen on the road. On this, the case was registered. The accused were arrested on 8.7.2009, the weapon of offence namely hockey was recovered. The blood stained clothes of Rajinder Kumar and Rakesh were recovered. Amarjit alias Bablu died, as a result of beatings given by the accused. On completion of investigation the challan has already been presented and now the next date is fixed for consideration of charge on 11.1.2010. The learned Addl. Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail applications. 6. I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased had taken liquor and possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased had sustained injuries due to fall as a result of consumption of excessive alcohol. In the postmortem report the injuries were found on the skull of the deceased. It appears from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the factum of injuries on the person of deceased were not disputed by the petitioners but what has been disputed by them is that they have been falsely implicated in the case and the injuries on the person of the deceased were not inflicted by the petitioners. 7. I have gone through the statement of complainant Om Parkash recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C.in which he has stated that he had asked Bablu who gave him beatings, Bablu told him that Rajinder Kumar and the person who was standing with Rajinder Kumar had given beatings with hockey. Kamlesh Kumar witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Rajinder Kumar and Rakesh were 4 quarreling with Amarjit alias Bablu. The complainant immediately reached the spot and the deceased at that time told the complainant that he had been given beatings by Rajinder and another boy with hockey. In these circumstances it can not be said that there is nothing on record against the petitioners. The death of deceased due to injuries has not been denied at this stage, only the allegation of beatings attributed to the petitioners has been denied by the petitioners. It cannot be said that there is no evidence against the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Resultantly, both the bail applications are dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. January 7, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1118 of 2009 Date of decision : 7.1.2010 ____________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) For judgment see judgment of the date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1117 of 2009 titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. January 7, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1024 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.11.2009 ____________________________________________________________ Ramna Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) For judgment, see judgment of the date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009 titled Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. November 30, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?