IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.829 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.10.2009 Dilbagh 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 Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.124 of 2009 dated 17.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of totally concocted story. The co-accused have been released on bail and the act attributed to the petitioner is the same as is attributed to the co-accused, who have been released on bail. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… investigation in the case is complete. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the direction of this Court. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner who used ‘sua’ for inflicting injuries to the complainant and his wife. It has also been submitted that part played by petitioner is more serious in comparison to the part played by other co-accused. Mr. J.S.Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that ‘sua’ is a dangerous weapon and for opposing bail application he has relied the MLCs of the injured. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complainant party had attacked the petitioner and to this effect an FIR No. 123 of 2009 was got registered. The police has falsely implicated the petitioner and other co-accused in the present case on the basis of FIR No. 124/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is entitled to bail on the basis of parity. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through order dated 1.9.2009 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 722 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No. 723 of 2009. I have also gone through the statement of complainant Karnail Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as statements of Sarvjeet Kaur, Prem Singh, Kundan Singh, Palvinder Kaur and all of them have named the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are that he used ‘sua’ for inflicting injuries on the …3… complainant and his wife. The MLCs of Karnail Singh and Sarvjeet Kaur indicate several injuries on their person. Karnail Singh has received injuries in parieto temporal region in addition to other injuries. Sarvjeet Kaur has received injuries over scalp upto bone extending from parieto occipital region and other injuries. The doctor in both MLCs has given the opinion use of blunt / sharp weapon. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and those cannot be equated with other co-accused. The part played by the petitioner prima-facie appears to be more serious. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, his bail application is dismissed. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 1, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.