IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M.) No. 438 of 2010. Date of Decision: 27.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Surain Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his daughter-in-law Parveen. Allegations are that he and his son Jagbir were instrumental in compelling the deceased to end her life because of unreasonable demands for money, which was to be utilized by the petitioner and his son for the construction of some portion of their house. 2. The petitioner preferred bail application before the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, which was rejected on 21.11.2009. The 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 petitioner was arrested on 16th August, 2009. On going through the order, I find that two grounds were urged before the learned Sessions Judge in support of the contention that the petitioner should not be released on bail. First was that if he is released, investigation and trial of the case would be adversely affected. Second was that he will threaten the prosecution witnesses. Both these allegations were serious. From the record I do not find any material to support either the contentions. Learned Sessions Judge was not correct in accepting these bald assertions by the prosecution. There has to be something on record to indicate that the accused has either made an attempt or will make an attempt which finding have to be recorded on some prima facie material, not conclusive evidence. Subsequently, two applications were moved, one by the petitioner and second by his son before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra. He also rejects the applications holding that there is prima facie evidence that the petitioners in that applications are involved in the case. The fact that the previous bail application has also rejected was also noted. 3. This petition was filed on 11th May, 2010. This Court issued notice on 12.5.2010. Certified copies of the evidence of the statements of witnesses recorded in the case have also been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in compliance to the order dated 18th May, 2010. I do not wish to comment on the evidence so recorded. All that I need say is that the material witnesses, namely PW-1 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, brother of the deceased have already been recorded, which would form the crux of the evidence against the accused. Any comment on this testimony would amount to prejudging the issue, which I refrain from doing so. What requires to be considered is that whether the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in custody for more than nine months. Though two bail applications have been filed, which have been rejected. Learned Assistant 3 Advocate General submits that repeated bail applications cannot be entertained unless there are changed circumstances between the two applications. 4. One of the most important facts is the recording of the statements of the star witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, which would make a difference in as much as the recording by the learned Sessions Judge that investigation would be hampered and the witnesses would be influenced, no long exists. I also note that mother-in-law of the deceased was released on bail on 9.11.2009. It is also the case of the prosecution that his custodial interrogation is not required any more. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on decision of Delhi High Court in Malkhan Singh Vs. State, 2010 (1) Crimes 99 (Del), holding that the fact that the accused has been in custody for more then ten months would itself constitute a ground for his release on bail. Of course the Court has also made certain observations that each case has to be decided on its own facts. Without entering into the merits of the evidence recorded by the Court, I am prima facie satisfied that the release of the petitioner on bail would not in any manner prejudice the case of the prosecution nor would it expose the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner. I have made this observation because of the fact that learned Sessions Judge records this in his order without there being any material on record. 4. In addition, needless to add, when the petitioner is at liberty, he will be able to prepare his defence in a better manner and instruct his counsel in the case. In these circumstances, this petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:- 1. He shall appear in the Court of learned Fast Track Court, Dharamshala, where his case is pending or any other Court where the trial is so conducted. He will appear on each and every date of hearing and his presence shall only be 4 exempted in accordance with law by the learned trial court, if so necessitated by circumstances. 2. He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 3. The petitioner will further undertake not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe, influence any prosecution witness, though four witnesses have since been examined. 4. The petitioner shall report once in two days in the Police Station at Nurpur at his convenient time. This direction has been passed in order allay the prosecution of tampering with the prosecution witnesses etc. 5. Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount undertaking to bind by these conditions and any other conditions, which may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. In case of breach of any of these conditions or any conditions imposed by learned Trial Court, the petitioner shall be taken back in custody forthwith. The bail bonds shall be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date when this order is first presented to the learned Trial Court. Petition disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 27, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge