IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. P (M). No. 228 of 2009 Date of decision: 9 4 2009 Ganga Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein failed to get bail from the court of Sessions, in case registered in terms of FIR No. 230/2008, dated 17.8.2008, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. Thus moved the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.8.2008, Smt. Byasa Devi had gone to “ghasni” nearby to cut the grass. When she did not return, the complainant, her daughter went in search of her, on the way, she met the petitioner coming from the sme direction. She was huffing. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - On covering some distance, the complainant found the dead body of her mother in the field with number of serious bleeding injuries on her head. It is alleged that there has been old litigation between the accused and the complainant party which might have resulted into the said incident. The petitioner was arrested and wearing apparels, which were worn by her on the day of the alleged incident, were taken into possession by the police and were identified by the complainant. “Ghumber” (grass thorns) “Kuri grass” was found stuck to it. The clothes were sealed and sent for forensic examination along with “ghumber and “kuri grass” with plants taken from the spot of the alleged incident, which on forensic examination was found to be of the same origin and connect the petitioner with the scene of crime. Further, the petitioner is also alleged to have recovered the sickle of the deceased, pursuant to her statement, recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was kept hidden on the spot. The petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code a heinous offence and is facing trial in the court of Sessions, wherein most of the witnesses have been examined and now may not take much time in its final disposal. Therefore, in - 3 - these circumstances, in my opinion, petitioner has no case for bail as such it is dismissed. April 9, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)