IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 961 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.11.2011 Baljinder 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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 262 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 262 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Haroli. The petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the case registered against him. The petitioner is serving in Indian Army but in view of registration of the case, he is apprehending his arrest in the above case. 3. The petitioner got married with Harvinder Kaur on 2.12.2009 and lived with her at Una till March, 2010. The petitioner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 thereafter joined his post at Srinagar, his wife most of the time stayed with her parents at Delhi. The in-laws of the petitioner are quite rich and they are pressurizing the petitioner to leave army job and to live with them at Delhi. The wife of the petitioner is also siding with her parents and, therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation, no recovery is to be made from him. He has prayed for grant of bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by filing the status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of application of the complainant received on 14.10.2011 in the Police Station from the office of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una. The complaint was for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 364, 511, 506, 34 IPC. The case was entrusted to Sub Inspector, Sushil Kumari, Incharge Women Cell, Una. During the investigation, it was found that no case under Sections 364, 342, 511 IPC is made out and accordingly, the said Sections were dropped. The three other accused Kashmir Kaur, Jasvinder Kaur and Kulwant Kaur have already been released on bail. On further investigation, Section 406 IPC has also been dropped. Now, the case against the accused is under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the record. It has been stated that from the wedlock a son was born to wife Harvinder Kaur on 19.5.2011. It has been stated that investigation in the case is complete. There is nothing in the status 3 report that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation or he is threatening or terrorizing the prosecution witnesses. In the status report, no request has been made for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, otherwise also, no case for custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 262 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, under Sections 498-A, 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 the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer and shall not terrorise or overawe the prosecution witnesses nor shall tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. 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. November 29, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.