IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1174 of 2010. Date of decision: 03.11.2010. Hitesh @ Dimple & Others … …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. Prior to the present application, all the petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur with the same prayer, which application was rejected by the learned Court on 22nd October, 2010. 2. The petitioners have been accused for offences under Sections 307, 341, 353, 333, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC in FIR No.123 of 2010, dated 9.9.2010. The case urged against the petitioners is that they had caused grievous injuries to Brij Lal who is working as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Chowkidar in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health. It is stated that he was posted on night duty and at around 10.00 P.M., he was beaten up by the persons as named by him in the First Information Report and some other unknown persons causing serious injuries on his right eye, tooth and jaw. He was later on referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla for emergency surgical treatment of his eye. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that First Information Report does not name the petitioners and that ground by itself was sufficient to have exonerated them from any wrong doing and they deserve to be released on bail as their involvement was not disclosed in the very instance when the First Information Report was lodged. This submission cannot be accepted. 4. The statement of Jagdish Ram was recorded on 2.10.2010 by the Additional Superintendent of Police, where he has also named the petitioner as the assailants. He states that he came to know about their names at later point of time. On the same very fact is the statement of Anant Ram. This case is still at investigation stage. The offences which are alleged against the petitioners are of serious nature. 5. From the material on the record and the investigation so far, it cannot be concluded or said that the petitioners are not involved in the commission of the crime. The supplementary statements of both 3 Jagdish Ram and Anant Ram are clear and point un- mistaking accusatory finger at the petitioners. This is not the stage at which I have to judge on the respective merits of the statements made on behalf of the petitioners by a meticulous examination of the evidence on record and then to give a conclusive finding. Even considering the prima facie case as set out by the petitioners, I do not find that the record supports their contentions. What I find from the statements, supplementary statements including the case diary is that there is insufficient material on the record showing accusatory finger to the petitioners’ involvement in the crime. 6. Further, this is not a fit case in which bail should or ought to be granted to the petitioners as the offences for which they are charged are very serious; the manner in which the injuries have been inflicted is totally barbaric and the medical evidence supports these observations. There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed. November 3, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.