IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.180 of 2008 Decided on: March 12, 2008. Vivek Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.230/2007 dated 21.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. Notice was issued to respondent on 4.3.2008 and the status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.10.2007 ASI Kaur Chand, Police Post, Santoshgarh, along with other police officials, in pursuance of Rapat No.8 had gone to Virbhadra Chowk, Santoshgarh. There they came to know that Harshvardhan sustained some injuries in the fight and he had been taken to Una hospital in a vehicle. Thereupon, ASI Kaur Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Chand went to Una hospital and found that Harshvardhan has died and his dead body was lying outside dead house. The statement of Amit Sharma under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has stated that he has opened a Karyana shop in his village Chhatarpur Dara. On 21.10.2007 at about 12 he had come to Santoshgarh for repairing his scooter. He had noticed that a fight was going on between some boys at about 12.15 on Tahliwal road at a short distance from Virbhadra Chowk. He and Mohinder Mohan noticed that Ashu Puri and Rajvir were beating Harshvardhan with kicks and fist blows. Ashu Puri hit Harshvardhan with force and he fell on the road and became unconscious. They left Harshvardhan on the road in unconscious condition and fled away on the scooter of Vivek. The complainant and Mohinder Mohan shook Harshvardhan but he was not in a position to speak. Harshvardhan was taken to Una hospital for treatment but he died on the way. Ashu Puri and Rajvir were keeping grudge against Harshvardhan since their school time and they attacked Harshvardhan with the intention to kill him. On this statement, F.I.R. was registered under Section 302, 34 IPC and after completion of investigation, challan has been submitted in the Court on 8.1.2008. The postmortem was conducted on the body of Harshvardhan and in the opinion of doctor, the deceased died due to rupture of aorta and head injury leading to hemorrhage, shock and death. During investigation, it has come that Ashu Puri on 17.10.2007 quarreled with deceased Harshvardhan at Chandigarh over mobile phone. The scooter Nos.HP-20A-5505 and HP-20B- 0797 were taken into possession on 25.10.2007. It has also come in …3… the investigation that petitioner Vivek Kumar brought Ashu Puri at the place of occurrence, Virbhadra Chowk, Santoshgarh on his scooter No.HP-20A-5505 and Vivek Kumar fled away along with Ashu Puri on his scooter after commission of the offence which was already kept in starting position. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, as per prosecution case, nothing has been attributed to the petitioner regarding the death of Harshvardhan. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he brought accused Ashu Puri on the spot and later on took him on his scooter. It has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail even as per the case of the prosecution. 4. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General. He has submitted that the case has been registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC. He has submitted that for common intention, it is not necessary that every accused should take active part in the commission of the offence. The common intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the involvement of petitioner is very much there. He brought Ashu Puri on the spot on his scooter and kept the scooter in starting position during the process of fight and after murderous attack on Harshvardhan Ashu Puri fled away from the place of occurrence along with petitioner on the scooter of the petitioner. The petitioner is involved in a serious offence. It has come in investigation that the petitioner has also played active role in bringing Ashu Puri at the place of occurrence on his own scooter and …4… thereafter he along with Ashu Puri fled away from the scene of occurrence on the scooter which was already kept in starting position by him during the fight. It cannot be said at this stage that petitioner has no common intention to murder Harshvardhan along with other accused persons. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he will influence the witnesses. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of offence and the allegations against the petitioner, no case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 12, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)