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.123 of 2010 alongwith Cr.M.P.(M) No.124 of 2010. Cr.M.P.(M) No.125 of 2010. Cr.M.P.(M) No.126 of 2010. Cr.M.P.(M) No.127 of 2010. Dated of Decision: March 04, 2010. 1. Cr.M..P.(M) No.123 of 2010. Surender Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. 2. Cr.M..P.(M) No.124 of 2010. Liaq Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. 3. Cr.M..P.(M) No.125 of 2010. Jalam Singh. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. 4. Cr.M..P.(M) No.126 of 2010. Bansi Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. 5. Cr.M..P.(M) No.127 of 2010. Daulat Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Add. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The above titled bail applications are arising from FIR No.20/09, registered on 11.5.2009 in the Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 147, 148, 354, 452 and 302 2 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, hence taken up together for its decision. Initially the petitioners were accused of an offence of attempt to murder, their anticipatory bail was granted by this Court on 26th June, 2009. Thereafter, the injured Tulsi Ram had died and the case was converted into under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Again the petitioners applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by this Court on 9th September, 2009. Even their SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court on 6.10.2009. As such, they were arrested in this case on 12th October, 2009. The Court of Sessions dismissed their applications for regular bail on 14th December, 2009. Now the petitioners approached this Court for enlarging them on bail. In short, the facts of the case, which are essential for the decision of these applications, can be stated thus. Tulsi Ram (deceased) had two wives, named Kidi Devi and Harmo Devi. Both are real sisters. In the month of February, 2009, some dispute arose between Tulsi Ram and one of the petitioners Bansi Ram. It is alleged that some fighting took place and said Tulsi Ram sustained head injuries. The matter was not reported to the police by any of the aggrieved parties, but telephonically one Bali Ram informed Police Station Shillai, regarding the said incident. Police visited the spot and enquired about the incident from Harmo Devi, wife of Tulsi Ram, but she revealed to them that Tulsi Ram fell down in the house and was taken to Herbertpur hospital for his medical treatment by one of the petitioners Daulat Ram accompanied by the second wife Kidi Devi, thereafter referred to the PGI, Chandigarh, where he was operated upon for the injuries sustained on his head. 3 While in the PGI, it was disclosed that injuries sustained by him were due to fall. Since there was no cognizable case made out, police did nothing in the matter. Tulsi Ram was discharged from PGI, Chandigarh on 3.3.2009 and taken back to his village as he had improved, but he did not tell anyone that he was beaten up by the accused-petitioners. However, on 25th April, 2009, Kidi Devi made a complaint to police, wherein she alleged that petitioner Liaq Ram was engaged as a mason by her husband Tulsi Ram and in absence of her husband, she was harassed by him. When her husband returned home, she made a complaint to him, which resulted the removal of his services. Police enquired into the matter. Thereafter, she filed another complaint on 1.5.2009, on the basis of which present FIR was lodged alleging that in absence of her husband Tulsi Ram, Liaq Ram petitioner had tried to molest her and her sister Harmo Devi in February, 2009. When her husband returned, she complained to her husband Tulsi Ram. On this, petitioners got angry and attacked Tulsi Ram in his house with the result, he sustained injuries. During the intervening night of 28th/ 29th august, 2009, Tulsi Ram died and before that on the request of police, his statement was recorded before the Executive Magistrate, Shillai, on 29th of June, 2009 that too when the pre-arrest bail of the petitioners was confirmed by the High Court. The police got done the postmortem of the dead body of Tulsi Ram in IGMC, Shimla. The time between injury and his death is mentioned “delayed” in the postmortem report and cause of death was given “multiple organ failure due to septicemia in a case of head and spinal cord injuries”. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the investigation file. In fact, in the injuries sustained on the skull, Tulsi Ram injured was operated upon in the PGI and discharged on 3rd of March, 2009. The condition and cranium of spinal cord as mentioned in the postmortem report shows that the deceased had developed some fibrosis on the left parietal and temporal area. Be that as sit may. The challan has been presented in the court and the case has been fixed for 25th March, 2010 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, pending for charge. On considering the entire facts of the case put forth and also the fact that the septicemia has been caused due to injuries which were later managed in PGI and also without commenting upon the merits of the case, suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have a case for bail. As such, there applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing the bail bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioners: (i) shall not terrorize the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner and shall present in the Court as and when required; (ii) shall not 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 truly to the court or to any police officer. 5 In case the petitioners shall make breach of any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of their bail shall be cancelled. Any observations made in this order, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. An authenticated copy be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for his intimation and necessary action at his end. In case the parties apply application for urgent copies, it be supplied to them as per rules. Petitions stand disposed of. March 04, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.