IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1008 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16th September, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Neelam Kumari ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). This petition for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted by petitioner Neelam Kumari who has been charged for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against her is that the husband of the petitioner is alleged to have beaten up Ms. Sarita Devi, who died as a consequence of the injuries sustained. Thereafter, he along with the petitioner and some persons tried to cover up the crime. Prior to this, a bail application for release on bail had been filed by her on 26.8.2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una which 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 was rejected. The Court also noticed that earlier also on 26.7.2010 another application had been moved which had been withdrawn and there is no changed circumstance calling for any interference of the Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges a number of grounds inter-alia that the petitioner requires to be set at liberty for the reasons that she has no hand in committing the crime as alleged, but was informed about the death of the deceased domestic help by her husband. He also states that now there are changed circumstances as the investigation is complete and therefore, her continue detention in prison is against law. 3. I have gone through the record of the investigation. I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this stage. Her involvement even though after the offence had been committed by her husband points an accusatory finger at her. Without saying anything more as it may prejudice the case of parties, all that I need to add is that the investigation is now complete and the material on record is not such which completely exonerates the petitioner. At this stage, I am not inclined to release her on bail and accordingly this petition is dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge September 16th , 2010(ms)