Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.230 of 2010. Dated of Decision: April 09, 2010. Satnam Singh and another. …..… Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Naveen K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Report filed. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in FIR No.89/10, registered on 22.3.2010, under Sections 307 and 458 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., as such, moved the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail. In short, the prosecution case as alleged against the petitioners is that the complainant Constable Harbans Singh, while returning from the duty during the ‘Navratra festivals’ from Kangra temple, at 7.30 p.m., came across the petitioners on his way to his village alongwith some other boys. All were in the fit of intoxication. They were using the abusive language between them. One boy named Bunty told the complainant not to go ahead, as the petitioners alongwith another boy might pick up a quarrel with him. Subhash and Bunty took the complainant to his house, but they 2 were being followed by those boys. The complainant entered in his house. Bunty and another left the place. When the complainant was taking food inside his house, petitioner Satnam Singh entered the house of the complainant alongwith a sword. He attacked the complainant, but somehow, he worded off the attack. The said accused dealt another blow and he raised the left hand to rescue. It hit the index and middle fingers and thumb of the complainant. The thumb got completely chopped off, but the index finger and the middle finger sustained cut injuries. Ramesh Kumar petitioner was also accompanying the petitioner. The complainant went to the police station and lodged the FIR. He was medically examined. According to the doctor, injuries No.1 and 2 were grievous in nature and dangerous to life and have been caused with sharp edged weapon. Police obtained the MLC and registered a case under the aforesaid sections. On 23.3.2010, the petitioners moved the Court of Sessions, for getting anticipatory bail, which was later withdrawn on 26.3.2010. The bail to the petitioners has been objected to by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the weapon of offence is required to be recovered from them. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, its gravity and the interest of society, the pre-arrest bail is not available to the petitioners. As such, their application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. Application stands disposed of. April 09, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.