IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.679 of 2009. Date of decision: 18.8.2009. Surinder …. 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. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.195/07 registered on 4.7.2007 at Police Station, Manali, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The petitioner has alleged that Lal Singh father of Sushma had lodged a report and thereupon a case under Section 498-A , 306 IPC was registered. Later on dead body of Sushma Devi was found and the case was converted to under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. The petitioner was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 arrested when he surrendered before the police on 4.7.2007 and since then he is in jail. The petitioner is now facing sessions trial No.21/08 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court) Kullu on the basis of FIR No.195/07 registered at Police Station, Manali. 3. The petitioner has alleged that earlier he had filed bail application which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Kullu on 6.11.2007. He filed Cr.MP)M) No.875 of 2007 in this Court which was withdrawn on 24.12.2007. The petitioner filed another bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.331 of 2008 which was dismissed on 11.4.2008. The prosecution has examined their main witnesses in the case and nothing incriminating has been found against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner after recording the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses had filed bail application before the trial court which was dismissed on 16.4.2009. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present bail application. 5. The petitioner has alleged that DNA report in the case is crucial; similarly statement of PW-11 Dr. Mahesh Kapoor is also relevant regarding the cause of injuries. The DNA report supports the case of the petitioner. The Statement of PW-4 Guddi is full of improvements. The conduct of the petitioner is relevant and material for deciding the present bail application. There is no other female member to look after the minor Shireya who is being looked after by the sister of the petitioner who is a working woman. The learned 3 counsel for the petitioner has thus prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. The bail application has been contested by learned Addl. Advocate General on the basis of status report which has been filed by respondent opposing the bail application of the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that DNA report, statement of PW-11 Dr. Mahesh Kapoor and Ex.DB wherein the doctor has stated that the injuries can be caused due to accident; support the case of the petitioner. It has been submitted that no blood was found on the bed sheet, pillow cover and car seats in which the dead body of Sushma was allegedly taken. It has been submitted that on the basis of evidence recorded till now the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. 8. On the contrary, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that PW-12 in his statement has clearly stated that on the examination of the vehicle, a few very small brownish stains were found on the rear right seat cover towards dicky side. These stains had tested positive indicating presence of blood. The blood had also been detected on the left side back seat cover of dicky. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that in the evidence petitioner has been connected with commission of offence. 4 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the trial Court the case was fixed on 22.6.2009 on which date some evidence of the prosecution was recorded. The case was thereafter fixed on 22.7.2009 and on that date evidence of the prosecution was not recorded and now the case has been fixed on 14.9.2009 for prosecution evidence. He has submitted that in case this court is not declined to grant bail then direction be given to the trial court to expedite the trial. 10. The prosecution has already recorded the statements of 13 witnesses. It has come on record that petitioner, deceased and Shireya were in the house on the previous night. In the morning petitioner and Raju loaded empty crates in Qualis vehicle and went towards Patlikuhl. Sushma was not found in the house. The petitioner came after some time. The dead body of Sushma was found on 4.7.2007 at Camping site near Raison. The petitioner and sushma were living together in the same house and later on dead body of Sushma was found near the river side. I have gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is not in the interest of either side to make comments on the evidence at the time of consideration of bail application. 11. The prosecution has already recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and now only statements of a few witnesses are to be recorded. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The statement of PW-1 was recorded on 2.12.2008 and since then 5 the prosecution evidence is continuing, now next date of hearing is fixed on 14.9.2009 for prosecution evidence. It is hoped that the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial. The application is rejected. 12. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Cr.MP No.574 of 2009 Infructuous. . ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 18, 2009 (sks)