IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.273 of 2011. Judgment Reserved on: 03.05.2011. Date of decision: 09.05.2011 Surjit Singh … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has applied for bail to this Court after his application has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. 2. The petitioner, Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar have been charged for offences under Sections 201, 302 IPC causing death of one unknown person, whose body was discovered on 20.3.2011, on information sent to the police by Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Ladoli. On postmortem examination it was found that the deceased had suffered injuries on his head as a result of which he died. On investigation, the police has recovered 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 danda and blood stained earth etc. which have been sent for forensic examination. 3. On 25.3.2011, all three persons have applied for bail; two of the accused Naresh Kumar and Satish Kumar, who were accused only for offence under Section 201 IPC, have been granted bail since the offence itself was bailable. The petitioner has been denied bail holding that prima facie an accusing finger points towards him. The petitioner has now approached this Court. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased was mentally retarded person who was roaming around the village uttering the words “Baba Nanak Pani Pila”. It is pleaded that the deceased being a person unknown to the petitioner, there was no enmity or motive for him to have assaulted him and that the spot of bloods etc. found in the courtyard of the petitioner, do not connect him with the offence. It is also pleaded that co-accused have been released and there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be kept in detention. 5. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner does not have any personal enmity with the deceased, who may have strayed into the house of the petitioner who may have given a blow to discourage his entry. The learned Court holds that there was a scuffle between him and the deceased and it is in this fracas that the accused Surjit Singh delivered a blow which resulted in 3 head injury. In other words the case set out by the petitioner is that it is not premeditated or intentional act. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. 7. What I find from the judgment of the learned trial Court is that an apprehension has been expressed that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence, though I find no indication on the record which would substantiate this fact or even point a finger at the petitioner, the same argument could have been used for the two other accused who have been released on bail by the learned trial Court. Surely, they can also be in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses. What is important to note in the present case is that the petitioner prima facie had no intention to cause death. The injuries were caused because of the trespass made by the deceased in the premises of the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and it is directed:- (a) That the petitioner herein shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. 4 (b) That the petitioner shall join investigation as and when directed. He shall undertake that he will not in any manner interfere with the prosecution evidence, threaten, overawe, influence prosecution witnesses or make any attempt either directly or indirectly to do so or interfere with the investigation in any manner whatsoever. (c) That the petitioner shall undertake to be present before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted by the learned trial Court in accordance with law for which purpose, an application shall be moved before the learned trial Court. If and when such application is filed, it shall be determined in accordance with law. (d) That the petitioner shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Una and shall not obstruct the progress of the trial nor shall he in any manner obstruct the investigation. 5 (e) That the petitioner shall further undertake to be present for investigation as and when called for. (f) That it will be open to the prosecution to apply for custodial interrogation of the petitioner in case so desired. (g) That it will be open to the prosecution to apply for any other or further condition to be imposed upon the petitioner over and above those which have been imposed by this Court hereinabove. It will also be open to the prosecution to apply for custodial interrogation if the circumstances so warrant. (h) That it will also be open to the learned trial Court to impose any other or further conditions which may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. (i) That in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand forfeited and the case will be referred to this Court immediately. The petitioner shall be liable to be arrested and taken into custody forthwith. 6 (j) That it will be open to the police to supervise the petitioner herein to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with the prosecution evidence. This application is disposed of in the above terms. Any observations made are expressly contained to this petition and do not determine the guilt/innocence of the accused in any manner nor shall they be taken as a carte blanche for acquitting the accused. The involvement of each accused shall be determined on the evidence adduced in the trial. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 9, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.