IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 328 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on 19.5.2011 Date of Order 2nd June, 2011 ________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J This is the second petition instituted by the petitioner herein praying for bail. He has been charged for offences under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B IPC for causing the death of one Rajbir @ Gurwinder Singh Malli, resident of Railway road Kadian District Gurdaspur, Punjab. 2. The pleading is that the petitioner has surrendered before the police on 11.8.2010 and since then he is in custody and no charge has been framed till date. In other words, the case 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 made out by the petitioner is that of his long detention of nine months in prison without the case moving further. The petitioner further pleads that murder was committed by one Vaishali, who is also a co-accused. The deceased was supposed to be a drunkard as according to the report of post-mortem, quantity of ethyl alcohol is 182.59 Mg. Learned counsel urges that weapon of offence has not been recovered so far. In these circumstances, a prayer is made for release him on bail. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General. 4. True that charges have not been framed and case is now listed for framing of charge. In these circumstances, at this stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioner. It will be the trial Court which will have an opportunity to examine the material on record and it will be open to the petitioner herein to urge as to whether any material on record justifies framing of charge for the offences as alleged or the petitioner can be charged for any other offence. It would also provide an opportunity to the petitioner herein to urge that he was in no manner connected with the crime. In these circumstances, this petition is rejected at this stage. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. June 2nd, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 3