IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.141 of 2010. Decided on: 4th March, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of HP. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) Petitioner Anil Kumar is one of the accused in FIR No.98 of 2009 registered on 31st December, 2009, in Police Station, Barotiwala, under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He failed to get bail from the Court of Sessions, as such, moved the instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his enlargement on bail precisely on the ground that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged murder of late Shri Ravinder Kumar Mehta. Heard and gone through the investigation file. In short the facts can be mentioned thus. Ravinder Kumar Mehta (deceased) and his wife Pushpinder Mehta (accused) were residing in Barotiwala. The deceased was running a shop there. He was found missing with effect from 27th August, 2009 from his house. Father of the deceased was also residing nearby in a Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - separate house. The wife of the deceased informed him on 28th August, 2009 that her husband Ravinder Kumar Mehta had gone to Delhi to purchase some articles for his shop and had not returned. Pushpinder Mehta lodged the report with respect to his missing on 4th September, 2009 in the Police Station, Barotiwala. On 5th September, 2009 the dead body was located at a place known as “Dinu Wali Dhank” in a jungle adjoining to the road which was in a decomposed state. The dead body was having a bracelet in which Ravinder Mehta was inscribed. Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased, identified the dead body. The police took the dead body and sent for autopsy and also the DNA test was got conducted, which established the identity of the deceased. Wife of the deceased Pushpinder Mehta was arrested on suspicion. It was then, her father-in-law alleged that she was of loose character and was having illicit relations with many persons which fact was also known to the deceased, which occasionally led to a tiff between the deceased and his wife. It was during the interrogation of the wife of the deceased she admitted her illicit relations with Rajesh Kumar with whose assistance the deceased was finished by mixing some sleeping pills in the food. When he felt asleep his air passage was blocked with a pillow. Thereafter his body was disposed of with the assistance of other co-accused. During the investigation police took into possession all phone details of the wife of the deceased, accused Rajesh Kumar and also the entries of the hotel where Anil Kumar, the present petitioner, an unemployed youth resident of Palampur, had stayed on 27th/28th August, 2009 with Rajesh Kumar accused. The investigation of the case is stated to have been completed except for - 3 - the result of forensic science with respect to the pillow alleged to have been used for gagging the mouth of the deceased. In so far as petitioner Anil Kumar is concerned, except his staying in the hotel with accused Rajesh Kumar at Barotiwala prima facie there appears to be no legal evidence connecting him with the alleged crime. Thus without commenting in the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner has a case for bail, as such, his bail application is allowed on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner; (b) shall associate in the investigation of this case as and when called; (c) shall present himself in the Court as and when required; and (d) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. The petitioner shall not commit the breach of any of the conditions aforesaid, failing which his liberty of bail shall be cancelled. The observations made hereinabove are strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and the same shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli for information and - 4 - necessary action at his end. If the parties apply for copy urgently, it be supplied to them forthwith as per rules. The petition shall stand disposed of. March 4, 2010. (Surinder Singh),J. (rc)