1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 898 of 2011. Date of decision: 15.11.2011. Naresh Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant 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.74/2011 dated 15.06.2011, registered at Police Station ,Karsog, under Sections 328, 302, 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that as per complainant mother of the deceased on 12.06.2011 the deceased had gone to sleep after meals. In the morning, her younger son returned from Shimla and when they went to the room of the deceased, they found him missing. They searched him. On the same day, when the complainant was taking her cattle to the field, the petitioner met her and threatened her that she should warn her son. The petitioner allegedly told the complainant that deceased had visited his house on the previous night. On 14.06.2011, missing report was got registered in the Police Station. On the same day, one Shanti Devi called the complainant and they found dead body of the deceased about 200 yards from the house in decomposed condition. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? .Yes 2 complainant suspected that the deceased has been murdered by petitioner and his wife. 3. It has been alleged that petitioner found the deceased in the room of his wife on 12.06.2011. The petitioner pushed the deceased and thrashed him with a wooden stick on which the deceased became unconscious and fell down in the field. Thereafter petitioner put some insecticides in the mouth of the deceased and strangulated the deceased and disposed of his body. 4. It has been stated that the entire prosecution story is based upon surmises and conjectures. The prosecution story is preposterous. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. The investigation in the case is complete. Even challan has been put up in the Court and the case has been fixed for evidence. However, trial will take some time. The detention of the petitioner, in these circumstances, is not necessary. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Smt.Kalawati. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that after framing charge, the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, on 05.12.2011 to 09.12.2011. It has been stated that in view of serious offence committed by the petitioner, the bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 6. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the doctor has not given exact cause of death. However, in the opinion, it has been observed that possibility of 3 self-strangulation cannot be ruled out. It has been stated in the status report that on the basis of statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, petitioner got recovered one wooden plank, 'kilta', rope and bottle of pesticide. It has been stated that co-accused Anita Devi has been granted bail by Fast Track Court, Mandi, on 18.07.2011. In the final opinion, no poison was detected in the viscera. 7. The missing report of the deceased was lodged on 14.06.2011 wherein it has been stated that the deceased had been missing since 12.06.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusal of the challan has observed that the petitioner was last seen with deceased and the deceased had relations with the wife of the petitioner, who had expressed his annoyance regarding this fact to the mother of the deceased. He has also observed that prima facie there is sufficient material on the record to show that petitioner has committed murder of the deceased. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. The case has already been fixed for evidence of the prosecution. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of the case and the allegations against the petitioner, no case is made out for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 15, 2011. (Krt)