IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 737 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.9.2011. Ravi Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.105 of 2011 dated 23.3.2011, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No. 324 of 2011 for granting anticipatory bail to him in the above FIR, which was dismissed on 3.6.2011, but liberty was given to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner had filed bail application before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Paonta Sahib, which was dismissed on 15.6.2011. The petitioner filed another bail application, which was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan on 10.8.2011. It has been stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case the detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The investigating agency has already filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used “Danda” during fight, but from the post mortem reports of the three deceased, it cannot be inferred that deceased died due to injury inflicted by “Danda”. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that in all there are eight accused in the above case and none of them has been released on bail. This court on 19.9.2011 in Cr.MP(M) No. 724 of 2011 has dismissed the bail application of co-accused Devinder Kumar. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The petitioner constituted unlawful assembly with co-accused and in conspiracy with each other brutally killed three persons and injured others. The petitioner after committing the offence absconded. He filed anticipatory bail application in this court, which was dismissed on 3.6.2011 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 13.6.2011. It has been submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The investigating agency on completion of investigation has submitted the challan on 22.6.2011 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Paonta Sahib. The prosecution case is that on 22.3.2011 …3… the accused party had some altercation with the persons of other community. In order to take revenge, the accused in conspiracy with each other attacked the persons of other community with deadly weapons, as a result of which Sunil, Anil and Sanju died and two received serious injuries. It created serious law and order situation. The doctor, who conducted the post mortems of the deceased is yet to appear as a witness. In the status report, it has been stated that petitioner has also used “Danda” for commission of offence and inflicted injuries on deceased Sanjeev Kumar. At this stage, it cannot be said that “Danda”, which was recovered at the instance of petitioner was not used by him for commission of offence. The allegation against the petitioner is of conspiracy and that he was member of unlawful assembly. In view of allegations of member of unlawful assembly, conspiracy and seriousness of case, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail at this stage, hence the petition is dismissed. September 28, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.