IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) 872 of 2008. Date of Decision: 3-9-2008 _______________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Thakur ,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. ___________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J, (oral) The instant application has been moved by the petitioner for seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in F.I.R. No. 208 of 2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 427, 201 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar, Shimla. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide his detailed order dated 23.8.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the instant application. In short, as per the case of the prosecution, during the intervening night of 10 / 11.8.2008 at about 12. 40 a.m, Jagdish, Chand, Chaman Lal and Attar Singh were standing near the bus Stand and likely to proceed to their houses, about seven persons including the petitioner herein formed an unlawful assembly and in execution of the common object, Whether the reporters of local newspapers are allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. attacked them with swords, base bat and Dandas which caused comminuted depressed fracture of the skull and Chaman Lal besides other injuries and grievous injuries to Jagdish Chand by sharp edged weapon and various other sharp and blunt weapon injuries to other persons. All the accused but for the present petitioner were arrested. I have perused the investigation file and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was allegedly a member of un-lawful assembly armed with Danda and he was alleged to have been identified and named by Chaman Lal and Jagdish Chand at the time of alleged incident as per their statements recorded on the same day. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and role played by the petitioner, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, he has no case for granting the pre-arrest bail. His custodial interrogation is essentially required in this case. Accordingly the bail application is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. September 3, 2008. (bm)