IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 800 of 2011. Date of decision: 13.10.2011. Mukesh Thakur ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. 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. 154 of 2011 dated 28.7.2011 registered at Police Station, West Shimla, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of offence. He has been roped in by the police. The petitioner was arrested on 28.7.2011. He remained in police custody for about seven days and now he is in judicial custody. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is not even remotely connected with the commission of offence. The petitioner is Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Shimla on 3.9.2011. 3. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated in the status report that case has been registered on the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Rajinder Singh Thakur father of deceased Hitesh Thakur alias Hunny. It has been stated in the status report that at about 3.00 a.m. on 27.7.2011 Atul informed complainant on telephone that Hunny had been taken to I.G.M.S., Shimla as he was not feeling well. He was asked to come to I.G.M.C. The complainant immediately went to IGMC and found his son Hitesh Thakur lying dead in IGMC with several injuries on his person. Mukesh told him that Hitesh was found in injured condition near 103 tunnel and he was removed to IGMC. 4. Mukesh Thakur alias Pawan and Atul Thakur alias Gulu were arrested. Atul Thakur made disclosure statement and got recovered one knife and one sword from the room of Mukesh Thakur. Pant, purse, handkerchief, keys, one helmet and keys of motor-cycle HP 63-3532 were also recovered from the room of Mukesh alias Pawan. On the disclosure statement of Mukesh mobile phones were also recovered. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that petitioner is not entitled to bail in view of serious allegations against the petitioner. The statements of Manoj and Himanshu have been relied while opposing the bail application. …3… 5. Heard and perused the record. The two accused Sandip Kumar and Nitesh Sharma have already been released on bail. The role attributed to Sandip Kumar and Nitesh Sharma is not so serious in comparison to petitioner and Atul accused. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted on 10.10.2011. Himanshu in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given the narration of events and has stated that Atul and Mukesh also came and questioned Hunny what was the matter and started giving beatings to Hunny. Manoj Bansal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also stated that Mukesh and Atul gave beatings to Hunny. Manoj Bansal in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that Mukesh told them that he got recorded in the FIR that some persons were beating Hunny near 103 tunnel. 6. The leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of Manoj Bansal recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. This is not the stage to go into the details. The knife, sword and other articles were recovered from the room of petitioner at the instance of Atul Thakur co-accused. The case has been registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. There are allegations that petitioner and other accused together with deceased were at a particular place. There are allegations of beatings against the petitioner also. The allegation against the petitioner is that later on he tried to project the story that deceased was given beatings near 103 tunnel by some unknown persons. The petitioner thus attempted to mislead the investigation. The allegations against …4… the petitioner are serious. The actual role of petitioner will be established during trial. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage, hence the petition is dismissed. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. October 13, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.