IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M).No.348 of 2011. Date of Decision: 20.5.2011. _______________________________________________ Rajender Singh ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the petitioner: :Mr. N.K.Tomar, Advocate. For Respondent: :Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). This petition has been instituted by the petitioner herein seeking bail. It is undisputed before me that prior to the institution of the present petition, an application was instituted before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, who by his order dated 5.3.2011 rejected the bail application. The facts as alleged are that on 15.12.2010, one Sadeep Kumar son of late Shri Jagat Ram, resident of Jajahan, P.O.Sanora, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour has got statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. recorded at Police Station, Rajgarh stating that he is working in Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 Dairy Farm, Kotla and his father used to work as a labourer and doing fishing work. On 6.12.2010, his father had gone to sell fish at Giripul and did not return home. A search was made for him in their relatives etc. but the whereabouts of his father could not be known. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Rajgarh. His neighbours Beli Ram and Ram Dutt disclosed him that on 6.12.1010 in the evening when they were sawing wood in their field, they noticed his father along with Krishna, Rajender and Chander Pal of village Shalamu and they were walking towards that village along the passage by the side of the river. He apprehended that they might have killed his father and disposed of his body in the river. The police investigated the matter and recorded the statement of six witnesses and arrested two persons, namely, Krishna and Chander Pal on 15.12.2010, who, during investigation, got their statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The case made out is that Jagat Ram deceased and Krishna had illicit relations for the last 20/25 years. The case is that Krishna, Rajinder and Chander Pal had beaten up Jagat Ram and pushed him in the river. The dead body was recovered and sent for post mortem to the hospital but the post mortem was performed at I.G.M.C.Shimla. The circumstance used against the petitioner is that he was last seen with the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge on the allegation in the First Information Report did not consider that it is a fit case where bail could be granted to the petitioner herein. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who urges that the allegations against the petitioner are of an extremely weak nature. Merely because Krishan had illicit relations 3 with the deceased was no ground for killing him. He submits that there is no evidence that the petitioner is involved in causing the death of the deceased in any manner. In fact, there is nothing on the record to show or establish that there was active participation on his behalf. He relies upon the decision of Niranjan Singh and another Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others 1980 Cr.L.J. 426. At this stage, on a primary consideration of the material on record, I cannot persuade myself that the petitioner can be admitted to bail. There is strong prima facie evidence pointing to his culpability. This, however, is not conclusive. As and when the challan is filed, it will be open to the petitioner to urge that no charge can be framed against him for the reason that he is not involved in the case and that the proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. This petition is dismissed at this stage with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this court/trial court again in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 20, 2011(R)