IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 74 of 2010 and Cr.M.P(M) No. 75 of 2010. Date of decision: March 9, 2010. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No.74 of 2010. Sunil …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 75 of 2010. Rahul …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent (s) : Mr. P.M.Negi & Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Deputy Advocates General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This order shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No. 74 of 2010 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 75 of 2010 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Cr.M.P(M) No. 74 of 2010 has been filed by Sunil and Cr.MP (M) No. 75 of 2010 has been filed by Rahul for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 342, 380, 395, 411, 458 and 120-B IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 74 of 2010. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 74 of 2010, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has committed no offence. The petitioner was taken into custody on 3.11.2007 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of one Jagdish Chand. The challan has been presented in the court and now the case is fixed for 9.3.2010 in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh for consideration of charge. The petitioner had been appearing in the court below, but the case is being adjourned on one pretext or the other. It has been submitted that there are several accused in the case and as many as about 15 accused have already been released on bail. The petitioner had filed bail applications earlier, which were rejected, the details of such applications have been given in paragraph-12 of the application. In the same paragraph, the details of the accused, who have been released on bail have also been given. The case of the petitioners is identical to the accused, who have been released on bail. In Cr.MP(M) No. 75 of 2010 more or less similar grounds have been taken for releasing the petitioner on bail. 3. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied by the learned Deputy Advocate General that several accused have already been released on bail by this court. The accused who have been released on bail and the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of almost similar type of allegations. It has been stated in the status report that petitioner …3… Rahul was arrested on 3.11.2007. The petitioners are in custody for more than two years, the trial has not yet commenced and even the charge has not been framed. The case is fixed for today in the court below for framing of charge against the petitioners. The petitioners are languishing in the jail for the last more than two years and it is not clear how much time more will be taken for conclusion of the trial. There are several accused in the case and as many as about 15 accused have already been released on bail. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail to them. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 342, 380, 395, 411, 458 and 120-B IPC on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court where the case is pending with the conditions that petitioners shall regularly appear in the court during trial. They shall report at Police Station, Baddi in the first week of every month till the completion of trial arising out of aforesaid FIR and presence of petitioners shall be marked at Police Station, Baddi in token of their putting presence and such record shall be maintained at Police Station, Baddi. The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution evidence or terrorise the prosecution witnesses. In case any condition is violated by the petitioners, then the respondent shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. …4… 5. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. March 9, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.