IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.645 of 2010. Decided on: 3rd August, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Het Raj ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). An FIR No.30 of 2009 dated 27th April, 2009, under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered in Police Station, Brow, District Kullu. The petitioner alongwith other accused were arrested on 29th April, 2009 for allegedly committing the murder of one Shri Shiv Kumar, Chowkidar working in ‘Phirali Ole Power House’ on 26th April, 2009, at about 8.15 PM outside the temporary-shed of PW Patrang. His bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, as such instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for the grant of bail. 2. The report was called for, which has been filed. It shows that the investigation is complete and Challan has Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - been presented in the Court for the trial of the petitioner alongwith co-accused Ranjit Singh son of Mohar Singh, Hem Raj, Jagdish, Rakesh and Het Raj etc., whereas with respect to the minor accused named Ranjit Singh, the Challan has been presented before the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. According to Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, petitioner Het Raj stood connected by the statements of Lalit Kumar, Patrang Dang and Bhanj Bahadur, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further they have identified him at the time of conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. 4. I have perused the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and also the TIP proceedings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. 5. Admittedly, Bhanj Bahadur and Patrang are labourers belonging to outside the State, whereas Lalit Kumar is minor and local resident of village Phirali Ole. The first incident is alleged to have taken place with Lalit Kumar during the same night who had also sustained the injuries and was got medically examined by the police, but he was not made an accused. This witness did not name the petitioner as an assailant nor he was associated to identify the assailants at the time of alleged incidence. Further, Patrang and Bhanj Bahadur who have allegedly identified the petitioner, stated that there were only four local persons who entered the temporary-shed of PW Patrang and one of them was Ranjit Singh, who was identified by him before the Sub Divisional - 3 - Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. It appears that the aforesaid statements of Bhanj Bahadur and Patrang were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate after the identification parade was conducted, but they did not name the petitioner. Further, discussion in the matter by sifting the evidence may prejudice the case of either of the parties. Therefore, suffice to say that at this stage, the petitioner has a case for bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall present himself before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushaher on 1st September, 2010 on which date the case is fixed for Consideration of Charge and thereafter on all dates during the trial of the case; (b) 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. 6. Needless to say that if the petitioner misused the liberty, the bail granted to him shall stand cancelled. 7. 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. Further, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its - 4 - merits without having been influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur for information and necessary action at his end and in case the parties apply for urgent supply of the copies, the same be supplied to them immediately, as per rules. The petition stands disposed of. August 03, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)