IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 760 of 2011 Date of decision : 11.10.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Mandeep …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 105 of 2011 dated 12.5.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that allegations against the petitioner are baseless and unfounded. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 27.6.2011. The petitioner has been implicated in the case on mere suspicion. The statements of Sanjeev Kumar and Dhani Ram do not make out any case against the petitioner. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The statements of R.S.Chandel, Baljit Singh and Sanjeev Kumar clearly establish involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, driving licence, credit card, city financial traveling card, pan card and currency notes worth ` 1270/- of deceased Subhash Verma were recovered from the house of the petitioner. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 27.6.2011. The charge has been framed and now the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence on 28.10.2011 and 29.10.2011. It has been submitted that on the basis of material on record, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the case merely on suspicion. There is no eye witness. The chain of circumstances is incomplete and the statements of Dhani Ram, Sanjeev Kumar and R.S.Chandel do not establish even at this stage the involvement of the petitioner. The alleged recovery at the instance of petitioner has been planted. Mr. Guleria has relied Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. 3 State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 for grant of bail to the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General has reiterated the stand of the investigating agency stated in the status report. 6. The FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of Dhani Ram wherein he has stated that Subhash Verma, Contractor had given job of electricity wiring and painting to the petitioner of IPH building. Subhash Verma came on the spot in his car. He talked to petitioner on mobile phone and thereupon the petitioner came there on his bike alongwith Mankotia. Subhash Verma told Mandeep that he would get money for the job of electricity wiring and painting only when the job would be done properly as the work was not satisfactory. The petitioner left the place alongwith Mankotia but he was quite angry. 7. The petitioner again came there after about ten minutes. In the meantime the complainant left the place but he again returned after about 15-20 minutes, he found that one person wearing white shirt was moving forward backward car of Subhash Verma. On noticing the complainant, that person who was holding danda and petitioner ran away from that place. The complainant lateron came to know the name of person wearing white shirt as Raju. The complainant searched Subhash Verma and found Subhash Verma in the room unconscious and was profusely bleeding. Subhash Verma was taken to Government hospital, Hamirpur where he died. 8. It is the case of the investigating agency that the petitioner made disclosure statement that he has concealed a purse which could be got recovered by him. It has come in the order dated 27.6.2011 of 4 learned Sessions Judge that as per statements of R.S.Chandel and Baljit Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner Mandeep got recovered one purse of Subhash Verma containing driving licence, credit card, city financial travelling card, pan card and currency notes worth ` 1270/- from his house after he made disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The purse containing aforesaid articles was belonging to deceased Subhash Verma. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that disclosure statement and consequent alleged recoveries have been planted in order to falsely implicate the petitioner. This can be considered only during the trial. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as on the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that there is no evidence of involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 10. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 11, 2011 . ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.