IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 569 of 2011. Date of decision: 09.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Jeet Ram. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S.Chandel, 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. 26 of 2011 dated 22.01.2011, registered at Police Station Rampur, under Section 306 IPC. The status report has been filed and record perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that son of the petitioner was married to deceased Asha Devi. The Investigating Agency has alleged that petitioner used to quarrel with his daughter- in-law as he wanted to have relations with her. The deceased committed suicide for this reason. The petitioner has abetted the commission of suicide. On these allegations, FIR No. 26/2011 has been registered at Police Station Rampur. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2011 and since then he is in custody. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 3. The petitioner earlier filed bail application in this Court which was dismissed on 16.03.2011, but the petitioner was not precluded from moving trial Court and this Court in changed circumstances. The petitioner filed another bail application which has been dismissed by learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr on15.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present bail application. 4. It has been submitted that after the dismissal of bail application by this Court on 16.03.2011, the challan has been submitted on 24.03.2011 and thus there is change of circumstance. The learned Special Judge has erred in dismissing the bail application on 15.07.2011. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner has been implicated falsely in the case. No purpose will be served to detain the petitioner for indefinite period, the trial of the case will take some time. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in case he is released on bail by this Court. On behalf of the petitioner, the prayer has been made for releasing him on bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner which have been supported by mother and sister of the deceased. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 6. I have heard both the sides. In the present case, there is no suicide note or dying declaration of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that allegations against the petitioner are totally false. The mother and sister of the deceased are interested to implicate the petitioner. The husband of the deceased has not stated anything so as to infer that the petitioner was interested in the deceased. It is unfortunate that Smt. Asha Devi ended her life, but petitioner cannot be blamed for the extreme step taken by the petitioner. The Investigating Agency has already filed the challan. It has been stated that though the challan was filed on 24.03.2011, but till now even charge has not been framed. The possibility cannot be ruled out that trial of the case will take some time. The apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner will terrorize the prosecution witnesses is not supported by corresponding material on record. The petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2011. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case has made out a case for grant of bail. 7. In view of above, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 26 of 2011 dated 22.01.2011, registered at Police Station Rampur, under Section 306 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate, stationed at Rampur, with the condition that petitioner shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses or make an attempt to win over the prosecution witnesses. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. August 9, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.