IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 1059 of 2011. Date of decision: 20.12.2011. Sandeep Gupta s/o Sh. K.B. Gupta, resident of Prestige Complex, The Mall, Shimla- 171001 (H.P.). …..Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Imran Khan, 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 petitioner on bail in FIR No. 139/11 dated 7.12.2011, registered at Police Station East, Chhota Shimla, under sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 506-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. It has been stated that case has been registered at Police Station, East, Chhota Shimla at the instance of one Akshay Bhardwaj. The allegations are that on 6.12.2011, when he was coming from Malyana near Airtel Office, Kasumpti, some persons misbehaved and threatened him that in case he will not withdraw the case against the petitioner, he and his family would face dire Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… consequences. The complainant has alleged that there is every possibility that said persons were sent by the petitioner. 3. It has been stated that in view of registration of the case, the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the above case. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The FIR is the result of inimical relations between the complainant and petitioner as five months ago, the father of the complainant had issued notice for recovery of some amount to the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are totally unfounded and baseless. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that Akshay Bhardwaj submitted a written complaint on 7.12.2011 in the police station on the allegations that when he was returning home from Chamyana with his friend Ajay Kumar at Tata Indicom office Kasumpti, suddenly 4-5 boys came in front of his car and pulled him out and pointed a revolver towards him. They threatened to kill him and his family saying that if the case is not withdrawn against the petitioner, they would first kill him and then his sister. On this case was registered. 5. It has been stated that complainant was got medically examined and in the MLC simple injuries were found on his person. The petitioner during interrogation has stated that he had paid Salig Ram father of the complainant rupees ten lacs on 21.10.2010 and another sum of rupees ten lacs on 27.10.2010 regarding deal of some …3… land. It has been stated that petitioner is not disclosing the true facts. It has been stated that those 4-5 boys are yet to be arrested. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application of petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel of both sides and have perused the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are that at his instance 4-5 boys intercepted the complainant near Kasumpti when he was returning home. They misbehaved and mishandled the complainant, who was medically examined and some simple injuries were found on his person. Those 4-5 persons have not been identified by the complainant. It has not been made clear how 4-5 boys intercepted the complainant when he was returning home in car. On the contrary, it has come in the investigation that there is some dispute regarding land deal between the father of complainant or complainant and petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 139/11 dated 7.12.2011, registered at Police Station East, Chhota Shimla, under sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 506-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. …4… 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. Copy dasti. December 20, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.