IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M.) No. 439 of 2010. Date of Decision: 27.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Jagbir. ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been filed by the husband of the deceased. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his wife Parveen. Allegations are that he treated the deceased with cruelty in connivance with his father Sh. Surian Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 16th August, 2009 and is now in judicial custody. 2. The bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 16th February, 2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, holding that there was a prima facie case against him and that the application of his father has already been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The Court also holds that the circumstances on record clearly suggest that the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 accused are involved in a very serious offence of harassing and maltreating the deceased. 3. Evidence of four material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution stand already recorded. PW-1, Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, brother of the deceased have already been recorded. In addition two more witnesses, namely, PW-2 Madan Lal and PW-3 Chaman Lal have testified with respect to the material circumstances of death of the wife of the petitioner. In this bail petition I am not making any observations on the evidence recorded, but I find from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that after noticing a few judgments, he disposed of the application with the observation that there is prima facie material to implicate the accused in the case. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that there has been no change in the circumstances since the last application has been filed and the filing of the present application. This submission can not be accepted; as the important change is that the material witnesses stand examined and in addition to them statements of two other witnesses have also been recorded. Without judging the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties, all I need note is that the mother of the petitioner has already been released on bail on 9.11.2009 and the petitioner is in continuous detention for nine months. Moreover, the trial has also commenced and material witnesses have already been examined. I do not find any material on record which would indicate that the petitioner will interfere in the smooth conducting of the trial or in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. Moreover, when the petitioner is set at liberty, he will be able to prepare his defence in a better manner and instruct his counsel. In these circumstances, this petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:- 3 1. He shall appear in the Court of learned Fast Track Court, Dharamshala, where his case is pending or any other Court where the trial is so conducted. He will appear on each and every date and his presence shall only be exempted in accordance with law by the learned trial court, if so necessitated by circumstances. 2. He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 3. The petitioner will further undertake not to tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe, influence any prosecution witness or hinder the progress of the trial. 4. The petitioner shall report once in two days in the Police Station at Nurpur at a convenient time so directed by the police. This direction has been passed in order to allay the apprehension of the prosecution of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses etc. 5. Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount undertaking to bind by these conditions and any other conditions, which may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. In case of breach of any of these conditions or any condition imposed by learned Trial Court, the petitioner shall be taken back in custody forthwith. The bail bonds shall be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date when this order is first presented to the learned Trial Court. Petition disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 27, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge