IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 896 and 897 of 2009. Date of decision: October 13, 2009. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 896 of 2009. Lalit Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 897 of 2009. Raj 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(s): Mr. G.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This order shall dispose of two bail petitions, being Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 896 & 897 of 2009 as both have arisen from FIR No. 265 of 2009 registered on 17.9.2009 at Police Station, Sarkaghat. Lalit Kumar has filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 896 of 2009 and Raj Kumar has filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 897 of 2009, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in FIR No. 265 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat on 17.9.2009, under Sections 451, 324, 326, 34 IPC and Section 27 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… of Arms Act. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 896 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 896 of 2009, it has been stated that Sachin Verma alias Kaka, Anil Kumar and Nishu gave beatings to petitioner and Raj Kumar and to this effect FIR dated 17.9.2009 was registered at Police Station, Balh. Thereafter a false report was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat against Lalit Kumar, who has joined the investigation. The weapon of offence had already been recovered. The petitioner had filed an anticipatory bail application, which has been rejected by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi on 29.9.2009. It has been submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation as per the directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to Lalit Kumar petitioner. 3. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 897 of 2009 Raj Kumar has taken more or less the same pleas as taken by Lalit Kumar in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 896 of 2009. It has been submitted by Raj Kumar that Sachin Verma alias Kaka, Anil Kumar and Nishu gave beatings to him and Lalit Kumar and to this effect an FIR dated 17.9.2009 has been registered at Police Station, Balh. It has been submitted that earlier Raj Kumar had filed bail application, which has been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi on 29.9.2009. The learned counsel for petitioner Raj Kumar has prayed for grant of bail to him. It has been submitted that Raj Kumar is ready to join the investigation in accordance with the directions of this court. …3… 4. In the status report, it has been stated that on 17.9.2009 Sachin Verma reported the matter at police station and has stated that he was liquor licensee. On 17.9.2009 at about 9.30 he was sitting in his shop, three persons namely Lalit Kumar, Raj Kumar and Jagdish Chand came there. They had purchased two bottles of Indian made foreign liquor. The sales-man demanded the money, but they refused to make the payment. On this they had altercations with the sales-man Santosh Kumar. All of them started giving beatings to sales-man. The complainant and others intervened, but Lalit Kumar took out Khukhari and gave a blow on the left wrist of the complainant. He also gave Khukhari blows on the right hand and head of Anil Kumar. Jagdish Kumar and Raj Kumar gave them beatings with fist and kick blows. Parkash Chand also joined the assailants and he also gave beatings to the complainant party with kick and fist blows. Rakesh Kumar and Jatinder Kumar were on the spot but they could not save them out of fear. All the four, later on fled from the spot. On this the case was registered. 5. The petitioners had joined the investigation. Lalit Kumar had produced Khukhari. Sachin was got medically examined, injuries were found on his person including fracture of lower end of ulna. Sachin remained admitted in Zonal Nospital, Mandi from 17.9.2009 to 3.10.2009. It has been submitted that anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners were rejected by the learned Fast Track Court, Mandi. FIR No. 37/2008 was registered at police station, Gohar against Lalit Kumar and FIR No. 116/08 was registered against him at Police Station, Kullu. FIR Nos. 81/08 and 227/05 were registered against …4… him at Police Station, Balh and all are pending trial in the courts. FIR No. 37/08 is under Sections 379, 411, 382 IPC, similarly FIR No. 116/08 is under Sections 379, 411, 34 IPC, FIR No. 81/08 is under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, FIR No. 227/05 is under Sections 451, 336, 323, 325 , 34 IPC. 6. It has been stated in the status report that in aforesaid FIR No. 37 of 2008 Raj Kumar alias Ramesh is also an accused. He is also an accused in aforesaid FIR Nos. 116 of 2008 as well as FIR No. 81 of 2008. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail applications on the basis of status report. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the status report, the investigating agency has shown its apprehension that in case petitioners are released on bail then there is likelihood that petitioners may influence the prosecution witnesses. The other accused Jagdish Chand has gone underground. It has been alleged that petitioners are in a position to create hurdles in the arrest of Jagdish Chand. It has come on record that petitioners are involved in several serious criminal cases including theft etc. The investigation in the case has not yet been completed. It is not in public interest at this stage to grant bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., rather in order to find out real truth, close interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. The pendency of several cases against the petitioners, prima facie, supports the contention of the investigating agency that petitioners are not entitled to liberty under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out a case for grant of …5… bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Accordingly, both the bail applications are dismissed. 8. The dismissal of aforesaid applications may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 13, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.