IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 432 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on 21st June, 2011 Date of Decision 24th June ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Sarwan Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking directions for his release on bail. 2. Prior to the present petition, application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (II), Kangra at Dharamshala which was rejected by an order dated 21st April, 2011. I need not go in minute details of facts of the case, but from the investigation file what I find is 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in an quarrel at village Jat Belli on 22.11.2010 with the uncle of complainant Karnail Singh. The petitioner was in the fields with his double barrel 12 bore gun and when both the parties were quarrelling, he fired with his gun at Surinder Singh, who sustained fatal injuries on his left thigh. He was removed to the hospital but he died on the way. The learned Court rejected the application on the ground that this is a serious offence where the petitioner had fired a gun shot, causing grievous injuries and thereafter death of the victim. 3. The present petition has been instituted after the dismissal of the petition by the learned trial Court. 4. The learned trial Court on the material on record concluded that there was ample evidence on record to show that the death was a direct result of gun shot wounds and therefore, declined the application. Adverting to the facts of the present case learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the petitioner requires medical care and attention as he suffers from mental disorder and in this situation continued detention would not be in his interest. He has appended some photocopies of medical tests etc. undergone by the petitioner. 5. One more submission made is that because of his diminished understanding and responsibility, the petitioner cannot be charged for offences under Section 302 IPC for the defences available to him under Section 84 IPC. I am not adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel at this stage. I concur with the learned trial Court that the offence is of serious nature and death has occurred because of the gun shot. 3 6. So far as the question of medical treatment etc. is concerned, it will always open to the petitioner to apply to the learned Court at Dharamshala for medical examination by the Specialist/Doctor at Tanda Medical College hospital or any other medical facility of repute. Diminished responsibility is a question of fact which is to be established during the trial. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly rejected. June 24th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4