IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1019 of 2009 Date of decision: November 25, 2009. Ran Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl.A.G.with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 31 dated 14.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Chopal, under Sections 302, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. There is no allegation that petitioner has used any weapon for assaulting Vikram Singh, who was being taken to Chandigarh for treatment by the petitioner, his wife and wife of Vikram Singh. It is a case of sudden quarrel, Vikram Singh was throttling his wife, which fact was disclosed by the minor daughter of Mast Ram to her mother, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… who had gone to cut the grass, but the police had not recorded the statement of that minor girl. 3. The petitioner intervened to save the wife of Vikram Singh, but Vikram Singh assaulted the petitioner and in the scuffle Vikram Singh had a fall on the articles in the room such as cot, wooden box etc. Vikram Singh was in near relation of the petitioner and the petitioner had no animus against Vikram Singh. The two women accused have been released on bail by this court on 6.11.2009. The case at the most falls under Section 325 IPC. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla on 29.9.2009. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General. It has been submitted that on the basis of statement recorded, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kamlesh, the case was registered. As per status report on 14.5.2009 at about 7 a.m. Kamlesh was going to her fields for collecting fodder through the passage which is on the back side of the house of Mast Ram. She heard the cries from the house of Mast Ram, she went inside the room and saw that Vikram was being given beatings by Pingla, Sunita alias Babli and Ran Singh with kicks and fist blows. Vikram Singh was lying on the floor and was unconscious. Pingla and Babli asked the complainant to go out and she was even pushed out, thereafter all the three closed the door and complainant came back to her village. She informed the villagers by calling them, Sukh Ram, Dula Ram …3… came to the spot. Vikram died as a result of beatings given by Pingla, Babli and Ran Singh. The learned Addl. Advocate General has relied on the post mortem report of the deceased and has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this court has already granted bail to two women accused on 6.11.2009 in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 937 and 938 of 2009. I have gone through the order dated 6.11.2009 and in that order the fact that two accused are women was considered, who have special case for bail and, therefore, bail was granted. In the status report filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 937 of 2009, it has been noticed in the order dated 6.11.2009 that complainant was going to her fields for collecting fodder on 15.5.2009 at about 7 a.m. In the status report filed in the present case, the date 15.5.2009 has been corrected and it has been changed to 14.5.2009. This apart, the perusal of post mortem report indicates several injuries on the body of deceased Vikram Singh. In the post mortem report of deceased Vikram Singh fracture of ribs 3 to 9 on the left side with fracture of ribs 3 to 7 on the right side alongwith fracture of body of sternum in midline has been shown. In the final opinion, the doctor has opined that deceased died as a result of multiple antemortem injuries leading to combination of shock and coma. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that deceased had a fall during scuffle and in that process Vikram Singh had received some injuries on his person from the furniture. In view of injuries found on the body of the deceased, it is yet to be …4… established how so many injuries were received by the deceased. In the present bail application, the petitioner cannot take advantage of grant of bail to the other two women accused, who being women have special case for grant of bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. November 25, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.