IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 736 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on: 10.10.2011 Date of decision:12.10.2011. __________________________________________________________ Arun Kumar @ Narain. .....Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. V.K. Sharma, J. The petitioner (accused) has moved the present petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’), in FIR No. 192/10, dated 20.12.2010, registered against him at Police Station, Nalagarh, under Sections 302, 460 and 201 IPC. He was arrested by the police on 28.12.2010 and is presently lodged in judicial custody. 2. According to the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police in this case mainly on the basis of location of his mobile phone. It is averred that there is no direct or other circumstantial evidence against him. According to him, he is not even remotely connected with the alleged offence. The investigation is complete. No recovery is to be effected from him. As usual, the petitioner has undertaken to abide by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 conditions of bail, if granted. 3. The petitioner had initially moved the Sessions Court for grant of bail, but his prayer was declined vide order dated 19.01.2011. Thereafter, he moved this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) No.120 of 2011 which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.03.2011 with liberty reserved to him to approach this Court/trial court afresh. 4. The prayer for bail is opposed on behalf of the respondent-State on the grounds that the offences alleged against the accused stand established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been laid against him in the Sessions Court and the case is now fixed for 11.10.2011 for consideration on charge. 5. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2010 telephonic information was received at Police Station, Nalagarh, from Shri Pawan Kumar that dead body of his sister, Smt. Saroj (deceased), was lying below her field. Accordingly, a police party headed by Sub Inspector Prem Lal proceeded to the spot and found that dead body of the deceased was lying below her house in the fields with her face downwards. It was found that there were multiple injuries on the back, face, forehead, neck and stomach of the deceased. On the spot Smt. Champa Rani, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar (complainant) made a statement to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. stating that she is resident of village Tikkar Panoh. The deceased, aged 56 years, who was her elder sister, was also resident of Tikkar Panoh. Her husband, Shri Raghuvir, has died about 10-12 years ago. She has three daughters. The eldest, Arti was married about 5-6 years back at Bangarh (Una). Other two, Sambhavana and Raj Kumari, were married on 30.11.2010 in village Nikuwal (Nalagarh). All the three are residing in their matrimonial homes. The deceased was working as a Water Carrier in Government 3 Primary School, Tikkar Panoh and was residing in her house alone. On 19.12.2010 at about 6 p.m the nephew of the complainant by name Parveen Kumar, who lives at Khanpur Rukh Ghansot, had made telephone call to the complainant and asked whether the deceased had come to her house and she had told him that she had not come there. Thereafter, her brother, Pawan Kumar had asked her telephonically to go to the house of the deceased and ascertain whether she had come home or not. Accordingly, she alongwith her mother-in-law, Smt. Santosh Kumari and devrani, Smt. Santosh Kumari, went to the house of the deceased on 20.12.2010 at about 8:30. There they found that doors of all the three rooms of the house were closed and bolted from outside, but were not locked. Shoes were lying outside the door in the courtyard. Thereafter, all the three ladies went down the courtyard to the field and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the field below. Then all of them came back home and informed Pawan Kumar about the occurrence, who told them that they were also coming there. Thereafter, the police also came to the spot. According to the complainant, the dead body of the deceased was seen by her, her brother Pawan Kumar and other residents of the village. There was a deep wound on the right eye of the deceased besides other injuries on the right cheek, neck, stomach and chest. The dead body was lying at a distance of 50 yards from the house of the deceased. The complainant was of the firm view that someone had killed the deceased and had dragged the dead body upto a distance of 50 yards below her house and disposed of the same there. She requested the police to take action in the matter. 6. It was found during investigation that ornaments, such as two golden nath, one silver mangalsutar, two silver rings gents, one pair golden ear rings, two pairs silver chains and some cash were found to have been 4 stolen from a trunk lying in the room of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. According to the medical expert, she had died due to “cumulative effect of trauma to chest and abdomen alongwith pressure over neck”. However, as per FSL report, no poison was detected in the viscera of the deceased. 7. Admittedly, the accused is nephew of the deceased being son of her father-in-law’s brother. They belong to the same village. There being no ocular narration about the alleged occurrence leading to the death of the deceased, the case of the prosecution is based solely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances alleged against the petitioner are that the deceased was not having any male child. She was having one plot at Nalagarh, a house and land at village Tikkar Panoh of the value of lacs of rupees. She intended to settle her nephew Rangpal at her house, which was not acceptable to the accused, who killed her in a planned manner. The accused had also refused to undergo Narco test. 8. The record reveals that the stolen ornaments have not yet been recovered. 9. Brief facts of the case and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-accused and the respondent-State stand noticed. However, I refrain from entering into an elaborate discussion of the same so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it shall not be unsafe to admit the petitioner to bail subject to imposition of suitable conditions. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the accused is ordered to be released on bail in this case on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, subject 5 to the following conditions: 1. That the petitioner shall make himself available to face the trial on each and other date of hearing without fail; 2. 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; 3. shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned trial court; and 4. shall maintain peace and be of good behavior during trial of the case against him. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge October 12, 2011 (cr)