IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.678 of 2008. Date of decision: 11.7.2008. Surinder Singh ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No.11 registered on 17.1.2008 at Police Station, Lambagaon, District Kangra under Section 304 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on the statement of Surinder Singh son of Narain Dass under Section 154 Cr.P.C., FIR No.11 dated 17.1.2008 was registered at Police Station, Lambagaon. Surinder Singh in his statement has stated that on 16.1.2008 he was working as Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 salesman on liquor vend of Ankush Gupta and company at Lahru, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra. At about 5 or 5.15 PM Balak Ram, Surinder Singh (petitioner) and Jai Chand came to the liquor vend and were hotly discussing some matter. They were standing opposite the counter and during the process of discussion, petitioner gave 3/ 4 slaps to Balak Ram and pushed him out side who felled down on the stairs in front of the shop which was closed. He went there and saw Balak Ram had injuries on the back side of head and blood was oozing out. He was unconscious. In the meantime many people gathered there and the injured was taken to hospital, later on he came to know that Balak Ram had died. Initially the case was registered under Section 302 IPC but later on it was converted to a case under Section 304 IPC. The doctor after conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased has given opinion that cause of death is shock due to excessive internal hemorrhage and head injuries. The challan has been presented on 13.5.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is unfortunate that Balak Ram had died but in view of prosecution case even a case under Section 304 IPC is not made out. The petitioner was arrested on 17.1.2008 and since then he is in custody. The investigation in the case is complete. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner continuously for indefinite period. The trial in the normal course will take some time. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the direction of this Court. The petitioner is resident of village Sadda, 3 Tehsil Jaisinghpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 24.5.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to bail. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that initially a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the petitioner but later on it was converted into a case under Section 304 IPC. The petitioner earlier was also booked in FIR No.25 dated 17.5.2002 under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC and FIR No.158 dated 17.12.2006 under Sections 325, 323 341 IPC both registered at Police Station, Lambagaon. The petitioner is involved in a serious offence and therefore he is not entitled to bail. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The statement of Surinder Singh son of Narain Dass under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has been perused so also the statement of Jai Chand under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecution case is that accused, deceased and Jai Chand were hotly discussing something and during that process accused gave slaps to the deceased and pushed him out side the liquor vend. The deceased fell down and sustained injury. The prosecution has not pointed out any specific material against the petitioner so as to infer enmity, motive or planning of the petitioner for committing offence. The incident took place all of a sudden. The prosecution has relied earlier 4 cases against the petitioner, but those are to be considered in the light of present case. The bail application has also been opposed by taking general objections that the petitioner is a dangerous person and if released on bail he can influence the prosecution witnesses, but nothing has been placed on record except registration of two cases noticed above. It is not the case of the prosecution that in the earlier two cases the petitioner has been convicted, nor the facts of those two cases have been disclosed. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.11 registered on 17.1.2008 at Police Station, Lambagaon, District Kangra under Section 304 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala with the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and he shall report at Police Station, Lambagaon at least once in a month till the conclusion of trial. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh) Judge July 11, 2008 (sks) 5