IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 876 of 2011. Date of decision: 2.11.2011. Amit Kumar & anr. ….. Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No.190/2011 dated 4.9.2011, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, under sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. They were not present at the time when the alleged occurrence took place nor they have a vehicle, as alleged in the FIR. The petitioners are college students. The petitioners were not aware of the FIR, it came to their notice when police visited the native place of the petitioners. The petitioners were regularly attending the classes and on account of registration of the case, the petitioners apprehend their arrest in the case. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. The petitioners are innocent. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the case nor any recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that statement of Rohit Negi was recorded, under section 154 Cr.P.C. on 4.9.2011. On 3.9.2011, the complainant was returning with Inder Negi after finishing programme at 12/ 12.15 mid night at Tribal Bhawan, Dhalli, a car bearing No. HP-25-2583 came near Mehta Petrol Pump, Sanjauli and three-four boys came out from that car. They started beating with kick and fist blows Inder Negi and complainant. Inder Negi fell down and assailants ran away. 5. The complainant also came to know that assailants gave beatings to another person on the road leading to Dhingu Mata Mandir. The complainant named the petitioners in his statement. On this case was registered. Later on, Manoj Sharma told that he was also given beatings by some persons. It has been stated that no vehicle HP-25-2583 was found registered in Rekong Peo. The petitioners are not disclosing the vehicle used by them nor they are disclosing the names of other co-accused. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The case was registered on 4.9.2011. The investigating agency is aware of the names of the petitioners from the very beginning. The interim bail was granted to the petitioners on 28.10.2011. This is not the case of investigating agency that after interim bail the petitioners …3… have not joined the investigation. The grievance of the investigating agency is that petitioners are not disclosing the correct particulars of the vehicle used by them nor they are disclosing the names of other accused. 7. The petitioners have denied the use of vehicle HP-25- 2583 by them. They have also denied the incident. It is for the investigating agency to trace out the vehicle, which was allegedly used at the time of incident. The complainant in his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. has given the particulars of the vehicle. The inability of investigating agency to trace out the vehicle is no ground in the facts and circumstances of the case to deny bail to the petitioner, under section 438 Cr.P.C. Likewise, it is for the investigating agency to trace out the other accused. The complainant himself is not sure whether total number of accused were three or four. Thus keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR 190 of 2011 dated 4.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Distt. Shimla, under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join and cooperate in the investigation as and when called upon to do so by …4… the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. 9. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Dasti copy. November 2, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.