IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 670 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.7.2010. ____________________________________________________________ Baljeet Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 223 of 2009 dated 17.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had earlier filed bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.10.2009. He filed Cr.MP(M) No. 944 of 2009 in this Court which ________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 was dismissed on 10.11.2009. The petitioner then moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala for bail but the application was dismissed on 27.11.2009. The petitioner filed Cr.MP(M) No. 71 of 2010 in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.3. 2010, another bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 163 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in this Court was dismissed on 15.3.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has not filed any bail application in any Court. 3. It has been submitted in the application that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner belongs to respectable family, there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. The investigation in the case is over and nothing incriminating is required to be recovered from the petitioner. The investigating agency does not require the personal custody of the petitioner. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner was arrested on 18.9.2009 and since then he is in custody. There is no one in the family to look after the interest of the petitioner. There is none to defend or pursue the case of the petitioner. The petitioner will not be in a position to defend his case properly. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court in the event he is released on bail. He will not tamper any evidence of the prosecution. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. He has submitted that even as per the petitioner he has filed several bail applications for releasing him in FIR No. 223 of 2009 dated 17.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, but every time his bail application has been rejected. It has been 3 submitted that the charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC and now the next date of hearing for prosecution evidence is fixed on 8 to 10.8.2010 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner is involved in serious offence. The petitioner is involved in another FIR No. 159 of 2007 registered on 7.7.2007 under Sections 341, 353, 32, 504, 506/34 IPC and is pending before the learned JMIC, Palampur. The petitioner is quarrelsome person, apprehension has been shown in case he is released on bail, he can influence the witnesses and commit similar type of offence again. In brief, it has been stated that there is no change of circumstance after the dismissal of the last bail application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is involved in a serious case in which charge has been framed and now it is fixed for prosecution evidence as noticed above. The petitioner has earlier filed atleast five applications for releasing him on bail and every time his bail application was dismissed. The petitioner is facing trial in another case also. The prosecution has shown apprehension that in case petitioner is released on bail, he may terrorize the prosecution witnesses and commit similar type of offence again. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of change of circumstance after dismissal of his last bail application. There is no merit in the application which is accordingly dismissed. 6. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 23, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.