IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M) Nos. 173 & 175/2010 Date of decision: 16. 3. 2010 Cr.MP(M) No. 173/2010 Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Cr.MP(M) No. 175/2010 Sanjeev Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, For the respondent : Mr.Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh (Oral) Heard. Petitioners were arrested on 5.1.2010 in FIR No. 98 of 2009, registered in Police Station Barotiwala under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The only allegation against them is with respect to destruction of evidence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. The alleged murder is stated to have taken 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - place during the intervening night of 28th and 29th August, 2009 and the dead body was found in the jungle on 5th September, 2010 which was putrefied. D.N.A. analysis established the identity of the deceased. Petitioners are alleged to be connected with the alleged offence on the statements of Arun Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Arun Kumar witness was a tenant of the deceased. He had been living in the tenanted premises w.e.f. 2.1.2007 to December, 2009 whereas Ajay Kumar is a resident of nearby village who is alleged to have seen Car No. HP01D 1468, pertaining to Hakam Singh resident of Palampur, parked during the intervening night of 28th and 29th August, 2009, near the place with three gentlemen standing nearby where the dead body was found in the jungle. I have gone through the statements of both the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Both these witnesses stated that they came to know about the murder of the deceased on the recovery of the dead body but there is no explanation as to why they did not report the matter to the police immediately whereas in the instant case FIR was lodged in December, 2009 at the instance of Sharda Ram, father-in-law of the main accused Smt. - 3 - Pushpinder Mehta and their statements were recorded on 13th January, 2010. Petitioners were also not got identified from these witnesses being the same persons who were seen by them during the relevant time. Therefore, in these circumstances without commenting upon the merits or demerits of the case, which may ultimately prejudice the case of any of the parties, suffice it to say that the petitioners have a case for bail. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P. and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioners:- (a) shall not terrorize the witnesses of the prosecution and shall report for the investigation in this case as and when required by the police and shall present themselves in the court whenever required to do so. (b) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. (c ) shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the Police officer. (d) shall not involve in any criminal activity in future. - 4 - Needless to say in case they commit any breach of any of the conditions above, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for the disposal of these bail petitions and shall not affect the merits of the case in any way. Let an authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan forthwith for his information and necessary action at his end. The copy be supplied to the counsel for the petitioners, if applied urgently, as per rules. The applications stand disposed of. March 16, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)