IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.384 and 385 of 2011. Judgment Reserved on: 14.06.2011 Date of decision: 15.06.2011 Cr.M.P.(M) No.384 of 2011. 1. Binder Singh … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Cr.M.P.(M) No.385 of 2011. 2. Chinta Mani … …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 Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Petitioners in both these petitions seek enlargement on bail. Prior to filing of the present applications, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioners have been arrested for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 IPC in FIR No.204, dated 5.9.2010 and are in judicial lock-up in Sub Jail since 21.3.2011. There are three accused in this FIR, namely, the present petitioners and one Keshav Ram. The learned Sessions Judge, while considering the applications of the petitioners including Keshav Ram, found from a prima facie examination of the police record that the complainant had suffered serious injuries which are life threatening. The Court holds that the petitioners have been successful in dodging arrest during this period and this factor has been used by the learned Court below to reject the bail applications of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the bail petition was rejected. 3. Both the petitioners, Chinta Mani and Binder Singh, before this Court claim that they are innocent and deserve to be released on bail. One primary ground urged by them is that the offence was committed on 4.9.2010 and they were arrested only on 21.3.2011. A period of more than 5½ months has elapsed and it would serve no purpose to keep the petitioners in judicial detention/custody. As an adjunct to this argument, it is urged that in case, as it was urged before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners are prove to tampering with the prosecution evidence; there was ample opportunity to do so between the period of occurrence and the date of arrest. There is nothing material on the record to establish this fact and 3 therefore, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. Second submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that Chinta Mani has not been named in the FIR, his arrest is, therefore, illegal or atleast prima facie there is nothing to indicate that he was the person who was involved at the time when the incident occurred and therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Adverting to the second submission first, if Chinta Mani is not named in the FIR, it is but obvious that no charge can be framed against him and his continued detention in custody would expose the State to action for exemplary damages for wrongful detention. 5. The case is now listed before the learned Sessions Judge on 21st June, 2011 after commitment. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the learned Sessions Judge to ensure that proceedings for framing of charge are not delayed and that the case is taken up at the earliest. 5. On the first submission made that the arrest is delayed for more than 5½ months, all that I need say is that the case of the prosecution seems to be that the petitioners were evading their arrest. In any event this can be one of the factors which can be urged by the petitioners herein at the time of framing charge/during trial to urge their non-involvement in the offences. At this stage, when challan has been filed in Court, this is not a fit stage for exercise of 4 discretion by this Court. It will be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court in accordance with law for seeking bail. Petitions stand disposed of. June 15, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.