IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 652 of 2011. Date of decision : 02.09.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Monu alias Manish Kumar …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. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, 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. 48 of 2011 dated 9.5.2011, registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is in no way involved in the case. The petitioner is innocent and imputations against him are totally unfounded and baseless. On the face of police story no case under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been submitted that earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 on 6.8.2011. 3. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than three months and now his further custody is not required. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The challan has already been filed in the Court. It has been submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that there are in all seven accused and all of them are in judicial custody. The petitioner is involved in the commission of offence. The case has been registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 IPC. The challan has been submitted on 9.8.2011. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the police file. In the status report it has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Pritam Chand, brother of deceased Uttam Chand. The accused were arrested. In the final report, the doctor has opined that death is due to coma by head injury. The FSL report shows no alcohol/poison in viscera. 6. In the status report in substance it has been stated that petitioner is equally involved in the case. He drove the vehicle involved in the commission of offence repeatedly from one place to another alongwith the deceased and other accused. In last, he helped the 3 accused to abscond from the place of occurrence after murdering Uttam Chand. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner is only that he had simply driven the vehicle involved in the crime. There is no allegation of actual participation of petitioner in the commission of offence. He has submitted that the relations of petitioner with Milkhi Ram were not good and, therefore, prosecution story is wholly unbelievable. 8. The investigating agency has alleged conspiracy and part played by each accused has also been identified. The prosecution case is that seven persons joined together in killing one defenceless person. The allegations are serious. In these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is dismissed. 9. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 2, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.