IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 620 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.08.2011 Roop 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. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. 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. 72 of 2011 dated 16.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody. The police has miserably failed to connect the petitioner with the alleged commission of offence. The petitioner has been arrested on suspicion. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner, who is ready to furnish bail bonds in case he is released on bail. The petitioner had Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 filed bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba which was dismissed on 4.8.2011. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of statement of Smt. Pramila wife of late Jai Singh recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on 16.6.2011. In the statement, she has stated that Jai Singh married with her by concealing the fact that he was already married. The other wife Tejo of Jai Singh about three months ago had gone to her parent’s house along with her children and had not returned. Tejo had filed some application against Jai Singh in the Panchayat. 4. It has been alleged that on the previous day her husband at about 8.00 p.m. told her that Bir Singh father of Tejo had called him at Kalhail, he went there. At about 4.30 p.m. she had talked with her husband on mobile phone. However, her husband had not returned to home last night. She tried to contact her husband but every time his phone was found switched off. 5. On 16.6.2011 she heard that dead body of her husband was lying in Uthal Forest Chobatta, she went there and found the dead body of her husband. It appears somebody had killed her husband by hitting him with stone on head. She suspected that Bir Singh with the help of unknown persons has committed the murder of her husband. 6. In the status report the investigating agency has stated that on 19.6.2011 complainant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.has stated that her husband on 15.6.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. told that Roop Singh and Bhag Singh were accompanying him. On 3 16.6.2011 the complainant went to the house of Bhag Singh at about 7.00 a.m. who told her that he was not with her husband. Roop Singh questioned her whether her husband had disclosed her whatever happened last night. He further threatened her that he would kill her in case she would disclose the information to anybody. Out of fear on 16.6.2011 she did not disclose this fact in the report lodged to the police. It has been stated that till now nothing has been found against Bir Singh, Bhag Singh and Moti Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 24.6.2011. Roop Singh has identified the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. The investigating agency has named Roop Singh for the commission of offence. It has been stated that the report of F.S.L. has not yet been received but the challan is being prepared. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police file. In the first version, the complainant on 16.6.2011 has not stated that her husband told her on mobile that Roop Singh was with him. On 19.6.2011 in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the complainant first time disclosed that her husband told her on telephone that Roop Singh and Bhag Singh were also accompanying him. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The investigating agency as per status report has proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of circumstantial evidence and his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act identifying the place where the dead body of deceased was found. It will not be proper to say anything regarding the merits of the case in the bail application. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the 4 application is allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 72 of 2011 dated 16.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Chamba with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 9. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. August 25, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.