IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.MP(M). No. 288/2009. Reserved On. 5.5.2009. Date of Decision:8.5.2009. Harpreet Singh …Petitioner. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.T.R.Chandel, Advocate with Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. Surinder Singh,J The petitioner is an under trial prisoner in F.I.R.No. 285 of 2007 dated 23.12.2007 registered in Police Station, Nahan under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly murdering his brother-in-law Harpal Singh. When the challan was presented in the Court of Sessions, the petitioner moved an application for his bail but it was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide detailed order passed on his bail application No. 68-N/22 of 2008 decided on 21.6.2008. Now the evidence of the prosecution is over and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 the instant application has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking bail as from the evidence on record his detention in jail is unjustified. The report was called for and I have heard Shri T.R.Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sh. J.S.Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that Harpal Singh had married Navneet Kaur (PW2) sister of the petitioner. It was a court marriage. But no one was happy with this marriage in her parental family. Her maternal grand father had also threatened the deceased with dire consequences. However, a compromise was effected on 16.12.2007 with the parents of Navneet Kaur. Since the couple had been receiving threats thus police protection was also given to them. It is alleged that on 23.12.2007 at about 4 p.m. PW1 Ishwer Singh was accompanying his son Harpal Singh (deceased). They were going on foot on the motorable road. When they reached outside the ‘Ruchira Factory’, a white Maruti car having black window panes arrived on the spot. The petitioner alongwith his friend Pawan Kumar co-accused and one another man alighted there from. The petitioner was allegedly having a sword in his hand. He attacked Harpal Singh along with his co-accused. A gun shot was also heard. It was also not known who had given blows on the stomach of Harpal Singh, son of the complainant who was disemboweled. 3 The petitioner along with co-accused allegedly fled away from the spot. Gurcharan Singh (now dead) the maternal grand father, of Navneet Kaur (PW2) was alleged to be a conspirator. The complainant (PW1) alleged that he took Harpal Singh to ‘Sneh Hospital’ nearby wherefrom he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. The statement of Ishwer Singh (PW1) was recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in ‘Sneh Hospital’ on the basis of which a case under Sections 307 and 120-B read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered. Harpal Singh died in the P.G.I. thus, the case was converted into under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also 120-B of the Indian Arms Act. Said Gurcharan Singh was arrested but after about three months he died the petitioner and Pawan Kumar both were also arrested and are now facing trial. After dismissing his application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused were chargesheeted. The trial is going on and the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been finally recorded. The certified copies of their statements are placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him now the witnesses have changed the entire complexion of the case, on the basis of which the petitioner is entitled for 4 bail. I have perused the statements of the witnesses. Now the following facts emerge: PW-1 Ishwer Singh who claimed himself to be the eye witness of the alleged incident has, of course, corroborated his version but according to PW19 Constable Gangbir Singh, he along with ASI Balak Ram went to the spot after receipt of a phone call. When they reached there, they saw the injured. The police removed him immediately to the hospital from where he was referred to P.G.I. Significantly this witness did not say anything about the presence of Ishwer Singh. The statement of PW2 Navneet Kaur widow of the deceased is worth noting. She stated that on 23.12.2007 i.e. on the day of alleged incident, her father-in-law Ishwer Singh (PW1) was at Udhamgarh at about 4.30 p.m. during ‘Rasham Pagri’ of Sukha Singh his brother. He received a telephonic message there at 4.30 pm. that someone has caused injury to his son and they were asked to reach the ‘Sneh hospital’. Thus she along with Ishwer Singh reached the ‘Sneh hospital’ around 5 p.m. and saw Harpal Singh in an injured condition where from he was referred to P.G.I.Chandigarh. PW5 Sh.Inder Singh resident of Udamgarh stated that neither Navneet Kaur nor Ishwer Singh were present in his village during the ‘Pagri Rassam’. The recovery of the alleged offence was made 30 K.M. away from the place of occurrence. 5 Further PW3 Sh. Ashwani Kumar is also an alleged eye witness of the alleged incident. He stated having removed the injured from the spot by the police, Police Post, Kala Amb in some private vehicle but did not say about the presence of Ishwer Singh aforesaid or the petitioner. Further, PW4 Sh.Munish Kumar was attracted by some sound of explosion and came out from his shop but did not see anything outside. However, he noticed an injured person on the road. Later he was also called by the police in this case but he could not recognize the accused person(s). No cartridge was found on the spot where the injured was lying injured. On the perusal of the above statements, I find it is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. No doubt that the entire documentation of the evidence is not required at this stage. What value should be attached to the above evidence is a different matter but however the aforesaid circumstances lead me to conclude that on the strength of the aforesaid evidence at least the detention of the petitioner in jail is not justified. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case lest such details might prejudice the outcome of the trial or adversely influence the learned Court below against any of the party, I feel satisfied that the petitioner has a case for his bail as such he can be enlarged on bail on imposing the suitable conditions. 6 Thus the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, (out of which one shall be a local resident) to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan and his bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner shall undertake before the Superintendent of Jail, Nahan while releasing him in writing: (1) to remain present on all the dates of hearing during the trial of this case and shall not terrorize any of the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner; (2). not flee from justice or jump out the bail at any time so long as the proceedings remain pending before the learned trial Court; (3). not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the truth to the Court in this case ;and (4). not indulge in any criminal activities in future. Needless to say that the petitioner shall not commit breach any of the aforesaid conditions lest the liberty of the bail shall be cancelled. Any observation made hereinabove, is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present petition and it shall not 7 influence the learned trial Judge in deciding the case in any manner on its merit. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for information and necessary action at his end. The application is accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 8, 2009(R)