Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.888 of 2008 Dated of Decision: September 11, 2008. Bhagwanti Devi. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh, J (oral): In FIR No.235/2008 dated 10.6.2008, registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Una, the petitioner herein was arrested alongwith the co-accused. In brief, the prosecution case as emerges is that on 10.6.2008 at about 2.30 P.M., the accused persons Pardeep Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Ram Kishan, Neel Kanth, Saroj Kumari and Bhagwanti Devi the present petitioner, had assaulted deceased Ram Kumar and committed his murder. It is alleged that Pardeep Kumar was 2 armed with axe and Sandeep Kumar with a darat. Pardeep Kumar inflicted a blow on the arm of the Ram Kumar and from the back of the axe on his head, which caused the death of Ram Kumar aforesaid. On the same day, the FIR with respect to the alleged incident was registered by Raman Kumar, brother of the deceased, who had also sustained the injuries in the alleged incident. The petitioner Bhagwanti Devi and Saroj Kumari are alleged to have given beatings to the mother of the complainant and his grand-mother with some hard substance with the result both of them sustained the injuries and no other role was attributed to them by the complainant in the alleged incident. Saroj Kumari was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.7.2008, whereas it was refused to the present petitioner. The notice of this application was given to the State. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer, appeared for the State and objected to the grant of bail on the grounds that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have clearly implicated the petitioner who facilitated the murder by the other co-accused 3 by catching hold of the deceased Ram Kumar from his waist and thereafter he was attacked by Sandeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar with the axe and the darat as aforesaid and this occurrence was also alleged to have been witnessed by Daman Kumar the brother of the complainant and his wife Kanta Devi and their father Sarwan Kumar. Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr.N.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has countered the above arguments and submitted that in the earliest version given by the complainant Raman Kumar in the FIR he did not state anything else than giving beatings by the petitioner and Saroj Kumari to his mother and grand-mother. Had the petitioner been holding the deceased from his waist as alleged, he would have not committed such a material mistake to specify her role as was later attributed, more specifically when she was a next door neighbour and complainant knew her very well. It is further submitted that as the investigation of this case proceeded, the prosecution witnesses improved their version considerably. There is also no supplementary statement of the complainant to correct the error if any committed to specify her role. 4 The learned counsel further submitted that even the allegations of beatings given by the petitioner to the mother of the complainant and his grand-mother is also not substantiated by the medical evidence and that might be the reason that the prosecution witnesses modulated the case as per their suitability. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, the petitioner is entitled for bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and have perused the investigation file. Prima-facie, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner, who is a lady, was able to incapacitate the deceased a Youngman by catching hold of, from his waist, to facilitate the other accused to attack him without any resistance offered by him. There is also no injury on the person of the petitioner. Further there are two versions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, one regarding role played by the petitioner as stated in the FIR by Raman Kumar complainant on the same day and other alleged by his brother Daman Kumar and his wife Kanta Devi whose statement were recorded after two days 5 and Ward Panch Ramesh Kumar, whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.6.2008, i.e. after 17 days of the alleged occurrence. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prima-facie it cannot be said that there was a community of intention of the act performed by the petitioner with the main accused persons. Both appears to be distinct and separate. The petitioner was unarmed. The catching hold of deceased by the petitioner may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she had the common object of killing the deceased as applicability of section 149 IPC, in the facts of the case is a debatable question. Saroj Kumari another accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, in the circumstances aforesaid, it cannot be denied to the petitioner keeping in view the nature of the evidence and the contradictions about the role played by the petitioner and no allegations of likelihood of the accused absconding or evading trial or tampering with the prosecution evidence, which consist of such persons who are admittedly at loggers head with the accused party. 6 In view of the above, in my considered opinion, there is no legal impediment or lawful reason to deny the bail to the petitioner. As a result, the petition for seeking bail by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. This bail shall be subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required and shall also present in the court during the trial whenever required to do so. Needless to say that she shall be interrogated by the police with all decency and as per the directions issued by this Court and the Apex Court from time to time; (ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 7 threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The petitioner shall not misuse her liberty of bail in any manner. The infraction of any of the condition would disentitle her from the liberty of bail. Any observations or opinion expressed herein above is only for deciding this petition, it shall have no effect or the merits of the case. A copy of this order be sent to the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Una for information and necessary action at his end. The application is disposed of. Copy dasti on usual terms. September 11, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.