IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. 151/2010 Date of decision: 10. 3. 2010 Rohit Jaswal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Devinder Sharma, vice counsel for Ms. Sulochna, Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh (Oral) Report filed. The matter heard and considered. As per report, a case under Sections 364, 342, 324,323,506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code stands registered in terms of FIR No. 28/2010 dated 23.2.2010 in Police Station Gagret District Una, H.P. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that Mohan Lal injured- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - complainant was security guard in the said Industry/factory. It is alleged that on 23.2.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., petitioner along with his parents (co-accused) arrived at the gate of the Industry/Factory in a vehicle and asked about the whereabouts of owner of the industry/ Factory and immediately thereafter father of the petitioner caught hold of the complainant from his collar and started beatings him and dragged him to the National Highway, in which petitioner also assisted. Many people gathered there. Raj Kumar co-accused, father of the petitioner, alleged that the complainant had committed rape with his wife. Thereafter the gathering dispersed and Raj Kumar kept on beating the complainant and the complainant was confined in a room for about one hour. He also thrust the liquor bottle in the mouth of the complainant and was thereafter taken in the vehicle towards Mubarkpur to Talwara road and from there, he was pushed out from the vehicle. The role attributed to the petitioner is only to the extent that he - 3 - was accompanying his father Raj Kumar and also gave beatings to the complainant along with his father. As per the prosecution case, when the complainant was taken in the vehicle, he and his mother Sushma alighted from the vehicle and it was petitioner Raj Kumar alone who had confined the complainant in the room and thereafter thrown him out, as aforesaid. Keeping in view the role attributed to petitioner Rohit Jaswal and also the fact that he is apprehending his arrest in non-bailable offences, he has a case for bail, as such interim bail granted on 2.3.2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions and also on additional condition that the petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activity in future. The petition stands disposed of. March 10, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge