IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.568 of 2010. Order Reserved on: 16.06,2010. Date of decision:18.06.2010 Devender Kumar …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.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner who is in judicial custody has filed this application for grant of bail through his father Shri Narta Ram. Prior to this, petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan which was dismissed on 6.11.2009. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case for conspiring to kill one Paras Ram. He is charged for offences under 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code with two other accused. 3. I am not entering into the merits of the case for the primary reason that the case is now fixed for recording the evidence on behalf of the prosecution in the month of July, 2010 i.e. next month. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist but he is also earning his living by performing religious ceremonies as a `Pandit’. He has one daughter about 6 years old and a son 5 years old and another small male child 8 months old and there is nobody to look after them as even his wife remains ill. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made against him in the First Information Report are taken on the face value, the only allegation against him is that he was present at the time when Paras Ram was allegedly murdered on 1.6.2009. He submits that the petitioner did not play any active part in the commission of the offence and is innocent. It is urged that he is in custody since 15.6.2009 and he has been detained for more than one year with tangible progress in the trial and the liberty of the petitioner cannot be circumscribed in this manner. The petitioner is in judicial custody and his continuous detention is not required even by the prosecution. 5. I have gone through the record of the case. At this stage, it is not appropriate for me to 3 pronounce upon the merits urged supporting the application as the case is now listed for recording evidence on behalf of the prosecution. I also find that in the application no new changed circumstance has been pleaded by the petitioner since the time when his first application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the criminality/involvement of the petitioner will be determined by the evidence which is brought on the record of the case by the prosecution. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case to interfere, at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Court again after the evidence of the main witnesses of the prosecution has been recorded. The learned trial Court holds that since the petitioner is guilty of a heinous crime, he does not deserve any sympathy and that his continuous detention would be determined by the outcome of the trial. I am not inclined to accept this extreme position. The learned court only notes certain facts and then proceeds to dispose of the bail application. 7. This petition is, therefore, disposed of. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court or to the learned trial court again in accordance with law after the evidence of the main witnesses of the prosecution has been recorded. It is directed that the learned trial Court will make all out endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible without 4 granting any unjustified/unwarranted adjournments to the prosecution. June 18, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.