IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.357 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on: 24.05.2011. Date of decision: 03.06.2011 Suresh Kumar … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for direction to be released on bail in case of arrest of the petitioner for offences under Section 435, 436, 147, 151 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 2. The allegations are that an FIR against one Sumeet Bhardwaj, who has been involved in murdering three persons, was lodged with the Police Station at Paonta Sahib. One of the deceased is said to be in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 relation of the petitioner and he accompanied the family members to get the dead bodies from the Government Hospital, Paonta Sahib. At this stage, only mob violence concerning the involvement of the petitioner would be the material collected by the police in the investigation which is at the initial stage. The incident is one of rioting mob violence and communal clashes in which the petitioner herein is said to be involved. On the basis of the material collected so far, it would be improper to give a clean chit to any of the accused, more especially, when the evidence/statements have to be examined in detail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011)1 SCC 694, to urge that he is innocent and is being named in the FIR for his involvement in the case which is a result of personal enmity and communal politics. At this stage without going into this question any further it would not be in the fitness of things to admit the petitioner on bail. This petition is accordingly rejected, at this stage. If the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required at all, it shall not extend beyond 48 hours in the first instance. The petitioner shall be medically examined and the State shall ensure that no torture, physical violence is inflicted on the petitioner. 3 4. In case the petitioner is taken into custody, he shall be produced before the Magistrate in accordance with law after the expiration of the first 24 hours from the time he has been taken into custody and if the remand is extended thereafter again after 24 hours thereafter. It will be open to the petitioner herein to apply for bail afresh in accordance with law. June 3, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.