IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.611 of 2011. Date of decision: 17.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Hem Raj. ….. 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. Inder Sharma, Proxy Counsel Mr.R.S.Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr.R.P.Singh, 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. 5 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, on 05.01.2011 under Sections 307, 506 IPC. The status report filed and perused along with record. 2. It has been stated in the application that one Gurdyal Singh reported to the police with the allegations that on 04.01.2011 and 05.01.2011, petitioner and Jitender Kumar injured had some altercation. The father of the injured along with injured and Devinder Kumar, Gurcharan and Krishan Kumar went to the house of petitioner. The father of the injured and father of the petitioner were talking to each other, in the meantime, petitioner inflicted knife blow in the stomach of Jitender Kumar. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 3. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner, who is ready to furnish the bail bonds. The custody of the petitioner is not necessary any more. The petitioner belongs to a poor family. There is no likelihood of petitioner jumping the bail. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that case has been registered on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Gurdyal Singh. In the status report, it has been stated that when Jeet Ram father of Jitender Kumar and Ishwar Dass father of petitioner were talking to each other in the house of petitioner, petitioner came out of the room with a knife and gave knife blow on the stomach of Jitender Kumar. Injured Jitender Kumar was referred to P.G.I. 5. It has been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that challan has already been submitted and after framing charge the case is now fixed for evidence on 19.08.2011. The petitioner had filed two bail applications in the High Court which were dismissed on 28.02.2011 and 29.04.2011. In addition, one bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh, on 10.03.2011. On 14.06.2011, another bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by Sessions Judge, Solan. There is no change of circumstance for releasing the petitioner on bail. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. …3… 6. I have heard both sides. In the order dated 14.06.2011, the Sessions Judge has observed that injured sustained stab injuries over chest, abdomen and remained admitted at P.G.I. from 05.01.2011 to 18.01.2011, he was operated upon at P.G.I. The injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the injured. It has been observed that apprehension of the prosecution that there is likelihood of tampering of prosecution evidence by petitioner is well- founded. No change of circumstance has been shown after the order dated 14.06.2011. In view of seriousness of the offence and the injuries on the vital parts of the body of the injured and the fact that injured remained admitted at P.G.I. from 05.01.2011 to 18.01.2011, he was operated upon, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Resultantly, petition dismissed. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 17, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.