IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 815 of 2011 Date of decision : 18.10.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Shashi Kant …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. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 144 of 2011 dated 17.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawali, under Sections 498A, 306 and 149 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the case has been registered against the petitioner, his brother, father and mother. The petitioner was taken into custody on 17.6.2011 and now he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is a student. The petitioner filed bail application which has been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 8.7.2011. The High Court also ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 dismissed Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 2011 on 29.7.2011 which was filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail. 3. The challan has been filed by the investigating agency, the petitioner is a student and is entitled to bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 3 months and his study has been affected. The petitioner is innocent. He is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 4. Heard and perused the record. It has been stated in the status report that the case has been registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Nirmala Devi, mother of deceased Anita, who was married in February, 2009. Anita was turned out from matrimonial home 3-4 times. The inlaws of Anita ill-treated her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 10.8.2011. In the FSL report phosphine gas was detected in the viscera. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application on the basis of status report. 5. The petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 29.7.2011 passed by High Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 2011 Shashi Kant vs. State of H.P. wherein it has been observed that there are statements of the witnesses suggesting the involvement of the petitioner in the case and as such, the petitioner does not deserve for any leniency in the bail. The bail application of the petitioner was thus rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order dated 29.7.2011 challan has been submitted in the Court on 10.8.2011 and, therefore, in view of change of circumstance, petitioner is entitled to bail. In the order dated 29.7.2011 in Cr.MP(M) No. 551 of 3 2011 the statements of witnesses which were available till 29.7.2011 were considered and the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any material after 29.7.2011 which prima facie exculpates the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence. The petitioner in the teeth of order dated 29.7.2011 has failed to make out any ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is dismissed at this stage. October 18, 2011 . ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.