Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.101 of 2010 alongwith Cr.M.P.(M) No.102 of 2010. Dated of Decision: March 05, 2010. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No.101 of 2010. Het Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No.102 of 2010. Budh Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Add. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The above titled bail applications are arising from FIR No.160/09, registered on 14.11.2009 in Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 307, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, hence taken up together for its decision. Heard and gone through the report and investigation file, which after perusal, has been returned. The petitioner Budh Ram was denied bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kullu. He was a co-accused with Het Ram, who is allegedly fired at Som Nath, complainant. The allegations are that the petitioner alongwith some person had gone to purchase Charas 2 towards Banjar. They could not get Charas anywhere and complainant was having Rs.6,000/- with him. It was Het Ram who picked up an altercation with the complainant thereafter, he fired at him. The pallets hit on the left back side of the shoulder of the complainant. Het Ram is said to have fled away and twisted the country made muzzle loading barrel of the gun and broke its butt. The FIR says that at the time of said incident, second person had left the place, but his name has not been mentioned therein. During the investigation, police came to the conclusion that it was Budh Ram petitioner, who was accompanying Het Ram and had knowledge of the said incident and he is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy with his co-accused Het Ram. The bail application No.101 of 2010, filed by Het Ram is not pressed, as such it is dismissed as withdrawn. Insofar as Budh Ram petitioner is concerned, his involvement is at the instance of the co-accused. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his application is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The challan has been presented in the committal court, thus, the petitioner is directed to be present in the court on each date of hearing unless otherwise exempted by the court for his personal appearance; 3 (ii) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts truly to the court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioner shall not involved in any criminal activities in future. In case the petitioner shall make breach of any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of his bail shall be cancelled. Any observations made in this order, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. An authenticated copy be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, for his intimation and necessary action at his end. In case the parties apply application for urgent copies, it be supplied to them as per rules. Petition i.e. Cr.M.P.(M) No.101 of 2010 titled Het Ram vs. State is dismissed as aforesaid and Cr.M.P.(M) No.102 of 2010 titled Budh Ram Vs. State is allowed as aforesaid. March 05, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.