IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 783 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.9.2009. Vijay Pratap Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur , Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 110 of 2008 dated 23.11.2008 registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been arrested on no tangible or legal evidence. The petitioner has been arrested on the statement of co- accused Narinder Bhaluni which is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioner had no motive or intention to kill the deceased. The investigation in the case is complete. No lethal weapon was allegedly ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes . 2 used for committing the offence. The petitioner is not keeping good health and is under treatment at PGI. The trial is not likely to conclude at an early date. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla on 20.1.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has ultimately prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the status report. It has been submitted that on the statement of Dharmender Singh Chauhan under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the case was registered and during investigation involvement of Narinder Bhaluni, Harpal alias Pal, Vijay Pratap Singh alias Chintu has been established for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC for murdering Yashpal alias Babloo. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that during investigation, it has come that six injuries were found on the person of deceased Yashpal alias Babloo who died during the intervening night of 22/23.11.2008. The petitioner and Harpal in order to destroy the evidence put the room on fire. The dead body of Yashpal alias Babloo was found in the quarter of accused Narinder Bhaluni at Tikkar on 23.11.2008. In this very room in the intervening night on 22/23.11.2008 Narinder Bhaluni, Harpal and petitioner consumed liquor. All the three accused quarreled with Yashpal deceased. The petitioner was arrested on 25.11.2008. He made disclosure statement and got recovered certain articles. It has been submitted that earlier three cases were registered against the petitioner, out of them, in one case he was acquitted, one case was compromised and one case under 3 Sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC is pending against him in Court No.III, Shimla. It has been submitted that challan in the case was submitted on 19.2.2009 and the charge has been framed against the petitioner on 1.5.2009 under Section 302 IPC etc. The next date of hearing has been fixed on 19.9.2009. In the last submission has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution has come forward with specific case against the petitioner and role played by him in the commission of offence. According to the prosecution, the petitioner inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased as a result of which he ultimately died. In fact the case against the petitioner and other accused is that they along with deceased consumed liquor in the room of Narinder Bhaluni in the intervening night on 22/23.11.2008 and a quarrel took place and the three accused killed Yashpal alias Babloo. The petitioner made disclosure statement and some recoveries were made at his instance. The charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence has no force. It is the case of the prosecution that in the past the petitioner was involved at least in three cases, out of them, two have been disposed of but one case against the petitioner is still pending. In light of material which has come on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail to petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 4 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. . September 15, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.