1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 410 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 411 of 2009 Decided on: 3.6.2009. 1. Cr,MP(M) No.410 of 2009 Manjit Singh …Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. 2. Cr,MP(M) No.411 of 2009 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. ( in both the petitions) For the respondent(s): Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge This order shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.410 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.411 of 2009, both arising out of FIR No. 168 of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2009 registered at Police Station, Sadar Mandi under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 212 I.P.C. Heard and perused the records. 2. On the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Ramesh Chand dated 10.4.2008, FIR No.168 of 2009 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Mandi. Ramesh Chand has stated that he had been working as Masalchi in the hotel River Bank. On 9.4.2008 at about 10 30. p.m. he was in the kitchen of the hotel, he heard some noise out side the road, he and other employees of the hotel came out side and saw that four persons were giving beatings to one man. All the four persons had come in car No. H.P. 52 A- 1868 (white colour) and they had parked the car in front of the hotel. In the meantime four persons came on two scooters from Solly Khad who are local residents of Mandi. These persons intervened and rescued Manoj Kumar from the beatings which were being given to him. The assailants were the manager and employees of Solly Khad liquor vend. The persons who saved Manoj Kumar had asked the complainant whether he could recognize those who had given the beatings, he answered in affirmative. Manoj Kumar had told that his scooter was parked near liquor vend, he would go on his own scooter to his residence. The four persons who had come on scooters, left towards Mandi. The complainant and others were standing there, Manoj Kumar came running from liquor vend side and he was followed by Mohindra Jeep without number, two persons 3 came running and out of them one was holding blue colour bat type danda in his hand. The jeep driver and one man caught hold Manoj Kumar in front of the hotel and gave beatings with bat type danda on his head and face, as a result of which Manoj Kumar fell down in a road side drain. He gave information to Kirti owner of the hotel. The persons who gave beatings were driver Deepak and two more employees of liquor vend whom he can recognize. The police came on the spot after some time and associated him in the investigation, it was found that the injured had died. Manoj Kumar was killed by the aforesaid persons with danda as well as kick and fist blows. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases has submitted that statements of 18 witnesses have been recorded in the case upto 10.11.2008 and thereafter for want of Presiding Officer of the Court the trial of the case has been held up. He has stated that except for PW-4, no other witness has stated anything regarding the involvement of the petitioners in the case. The statement of PW-4 was recorded by the police after many days of the incident and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW-4. He has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to speedy trial and if for some reason or the other the trial is held up then the petitioners are entitled to bail. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds. He has also submitted that since all the material witnesses have been 4 examined, therefore, there is no question of petitioners’ influencing the prosecution witnesses. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners are involved in a serious case. PW-4 has specifically named the petitioners. Manjit Singh was arrested about three weeks after the incident as he had gone underground and in case the petitioners are released on bail there is possibility that they will jump the bail. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. In Cr.MP(M) No.410 of 2009, certified copies of the statements of PW-1 to PW-18 have been placed on record. I am not purposely touching the merits of the case, so that it may not prejudice the case of either side. PW-4 has named the petitioners, PW-9 Dr. Jiwa Nand has proved the post mortem report Ex.,PW-9/B. I have also perused the statement of PW-18 Gurmit Kaur, Judicial Magistrate. Some evidence has been recorded in the case, therefore that evidence is relevant for purposes of bail application. It cannot be said that for purposes of bail applications the case is of no evidence. The parameters for bail are different and well known. In case the petitioners have grievance regarding the trial for want of Presiding Officer then they can, if so advice, seek appropriate remedy for transfer of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh 2008(4) 5 Criminal Court Cases 318 on the ground that benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused in case of delay of three weeks in recording the statements of eye witnesses. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is on merits of the case and not for purposes of granting the bail. Therefore, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that some accused have already been released on bail but he has fairly submitted that in the present bail applications he is not seeking bail of the petitioners on the ground of parity. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for the grant of bail at this stage. Resultantly, both Cr.MP(M) No.410 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.411 of 2009 are dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. June 3, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M)No.411 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.6.2009 Rakesh Kumar ….Petitioner. vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the petitioner : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. For order, see order of date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.410 of 2009 , titled Manjit Singh Vs. State of H.P. June 3, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ), (sks) Judge. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 7