IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.80 of 2011. Cr.MP(M) No.81 of 2011. Cr.MP(M) No.82 of 2011. Cr.MP(M) No.83 of 2011. Reserved on : 10.03.2011. Date of Decision:16.03.2011. ______________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No.80 of 2011. Deepak Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Cr.MP(M) No.81 of 2011. Ram Kishore. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Cr.MP(M) No.82 of 2011. Umesh Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Cr.MP(M) No.83 of 2011. Nishant Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?. No. For the petitioner :Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Advocate. (in all petitions) For the Respondent. :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan Dy.Advocate General. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same FIR. The petitioners herein have been charged for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prior to the filing of the present petitions, the petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr praying for release on bail. It was urged by them that they have been falsely implicated in this case and it was only under the pressure of the local people that they were arrested. They had been made scape-goats as the police was unable to apprehend the real culprit(s). It was also alleged that they had gone to Chandigarh on 21.10.2010 alongwith consignment of apples etc. in order to settle their accounts. 2. The brief facts are that on 22.10.2010 at around 7.30 A.M., Shri Rakesh Kumar, who was running business of a Chemist in Sangla Bazaar informed the police that a person was lying in Tong-Tongche nullah. At this, the Station House Officer, Police Station ,Sangla, went to the spot and found that one person was in fact lying in the ‘khad’ and he was dead. He was identified as Suraj Chand, son of Shri Gian Chand by one Mukesh. His dead- body was sent for post mortem to Community Health Centre,Sangla. Shri Deva Sain got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that his sister Dayamani was informed on 22.10.2010 by Jai Kumar that the dead body of her son had been found in Tong-Tongche nullah. During investigation, it was found that on 21.10.2010 all the petitioners had consumed beer in ‘Anupam Bar’ and had quarreled with the deceased to whom they met on the way. On 22.10.2010, these 3 people had left for Chandigarh under the pretext that they were to take their consignment of apples. They could not be contacted till 03.11.2010 and when they were arrested. The allegations are that there had been a scuffle between the petitioners with the deceased on 21.10.2010. The deceased had slapped petitioner Umesh. It was on this count that he was purportedly beaten up. 3 It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated, their plea that they had gone to Chandigarh has not been considered by the learned Court below, there was no direct evidence to connect them with the occurrence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. The submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, prima facie, there is no evidence to link them with the factum of the offence that the occurrence cannot be accepted out right in the manner in which it is held by the Court below. There is, in fact, statement of Shri Shyampur on record, who states that the petitioners were drunk and who first quarreled with him and thereafter entered into a quarrel with the deceased. They have been described as ruffians who had been arrested by the police on number of occasions. The learned Additional Advocate General has urged that these persons were last seen quarreling with the deceased and therefore this was a very important circumstance against them. At this stage, I cannot express finality to this submission but nonetheless it does point out to the fact that the petitioners were in fact involved. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that these persons are habitual offenders for which purpose, he has submitted that a number of cases are pending against them. I find 4 from the record that there are in fact three cases are pending against Ram Kishore. 5. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more especially the submission that they were last seen quarrelling with the deceased, I do not find this a fit case in which they can be released on bail at this stage. Any observations made by me in this petition shall not determine the merits of the case of the parties. All these applications are accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 16th March, 2011. (krt)