IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 45 of 2009 Date of decision: February 3, 2009. Chander Sekher …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. & Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the respondent. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 283/08 dated 10.12.2008 registered at Police Station, Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. under Section 306 IPC. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General on the ground that petitioner threatened minor Kuldip Thapa with dire consequences who was studying in 9th standard. Kuldip Thapa could not bear the threats of the petitioner and he consumed salphas and died. Thereupon the case was registered against the petitioner. It has been submitted that petitioner has past criminal record. He was prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 IPC but was convicted under Section 326 IPC. The petitioner earlier filed bail application, which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamshala on 9.1.2009. He filed another bail application in this court being Cr.MP(M) No. 22 of 2009 which he withdrew on 13.1.2009 with liberty to file another bail application. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone trough the record. The allegations against the petitioner are that he threatened Kuldip Thapa minor, who could not bear his threats and ended his life by consuming salphas. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Dharamshala on 9.1.2009, thereupon he filed another bail application in this court which he withdrew on 13.1.2009. The present bail application was filed on 27.1.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in between 13.1.2009 and 27.1.2009 the investigation in the case was completed and, therefore, the petitioner filed the bail application on …3… 27.1.2009. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that investigation in the case has not yet been completed and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. In these circumstances, there is no change of circumstance from 13.1.2009 till now and the position of the case remains almost the same as it was on 13.1.2009 when the petitioner withdrew his earlier bail application. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, hence, the petition is dismissed. 5. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. February 3, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Vacation Judge.