IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 261 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.4.2010. Sandeep Chauhan …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C.Negi with Mr. Praveer Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K.Sharma , Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 116 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Barmana on 12.6.2007 under Sections 342, 328, 392, 411, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been arrested on 1.7.2008 in the above case. No recovery was made from the petitioner. There are three accused in all including Manish Soni, Kimati Lal and petitioner. The accused Kimati Lal has already been released on bail. The investigation in the case is complete. The challan has been submitted in the court and now the next date is fixed for consideration of charge on 22.5.2010. The accused Manish ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Soni is not appearing in the court on every date probably for the reasons that he is accused in several cases outside the State. The petitioner has improved his qualification and he has passed B.A.III examination from H.P.University during his custody and he intends to continue his further studies. It has been submitted that petitioner had earlier filed bail applications in the lower Court as well as in the High Court which were dismissed. It is not clear how much time the trial Court will take for deciding the case. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. It has been submitted that in view of long detention of petitioner and keeping in view the facts of the case petitioner may be granted bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems just and proper. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General and it has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious case, his earlier bail applications have been rejected by the courts below as well as by this Court. There is no change of circumstance. The petitioner is not entitled to bail. It has been submitted that learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail applications of the petitioner on 9.7.2008 and 16.1.2009. This court has dismissed the bail applications of the petitioner on 25.7.2008 and 11.5.2009. It has been stated in the status report that the challan was filed on 22.8.2008. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was arrested on 1.7.2008 as per learned counsel for the petitioner. This is otherwise clear from the order dated 25.7.2008 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 725 of 2008 that the petitioner had surrendered on 1.7.2008 and was arrested. Thus, petitioner is in jail since 1.7.2008. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution is to examine 23 witnesses in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (2000) 9 SCC 443 wherein the appellant who was in jail from 4.4.1998 in offence under Sections 307, 395 3 read with Section 149 IPC was released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4.1.2000. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 1.7.2008, the challan was presented in the Court on 22.8.2008 and till now, even charge has not been framed. On behalf of the State, it has not been denied that prosecution is to examine 23 witnesses in the case. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that how much time the prosecution will take for conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is languishing in the jail. He has improved his qualification during the jail. He intends to continue his studies as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner is involved in some other case. The case of the petitioner cannot be equated with Manish Soni. 6. Therefore, keeping in view over all facts and circumstances of the case and part attributed to the petitioner, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution evidence nor terrorize the prosecution witnesses. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. April 19, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.