IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. P (M). No. 353 of 2009 Date of decision: 20. 5. 2009 Sh. Jeet Raj …..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. Ashok Kumar Sood, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner was arrested on 9.3.2009 in FIR No. 76/2009 dated 6.3.2009 under Sections 302, 451, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. The instant application for bail has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his enlargement on bail. In short, prosecution case is that during the intervening night of 5th and 6th March, 2009, there was a “jagrata” in the house of deceased Dumunu Ram. Balbir Singh, brother-in-law of the petitioner came there in a drunken condition and started dancing in the court-yard at about 11.45 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - p.m. with a music instrument “Chhena”, which was objected to by the persons present there, including Janak Singh who was given a slap by him. Thereafter his brother-in-law Jeet Ram (petitioner) came and took away Balbir Singh from there. Again at about 1.45 a.m. Tilak Raj, Balbir Singh and Jeet Ram (petitioner) came to the court- yard and started hurling abuses and threw away the music-system. On this Dumunu Ram raised protest. Tetitioner Jeet Ram and his brother Tilak Raj got infuriated and started fisticuffing and kicking him. Then both banged him on the floor of the court-yard resulting into a bleeding injury on the right side of his head and he became unconscious. It is also alleged that thereafter Balbir Singh, Jeet Ram and Tilak Raj all started beating other persons present there who had intervened in the matter. Dumunu Ram was taken to a private Hospital (Ravi Hospital), Pathankot. Seeing his injury, they and advised the attendants to deposit approximately the amount of Rs. 90,000/- for his treatment as it involved the surgical operation of his head. The attendants could not make the payment as Dumunu Ram was an ex-serviceman, therefore; he was taken to Military Hospital, Pathankot. In the meantime, a case was got registered at the instance of Manohar Lal under Sections 307, 451, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. - 3 - Dumunu Ram remained unconscious till 9.3.2009 but ultimately died around 2.5 p.m. in the Military Hospital, Pathankot. The dead-body was released to the police and the autopsy was performed in Civil Hospital, Nurpur. The doctor performing the postmortem, found the stitched wound present on the right side of the scalp at temporal parietal region 4” in length. On opening the skull right temporal bone was found absent and cranium was full of blood. Brain matter was congested and some brain matter came out on opening the skull. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was defused, massive collection of blood present in cranial cavity and congestion of brain matter leading to infection and death in due course of time. The FIR was converted to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Viscera of the deceased was not sent for forensic examination on the ground that cause of death was opined to be by head injury. After completion of the investigation, challan has been presented in the court, which is pending committal proceedings. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the facts stated above it is not a case falling under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at the worst, it could be a case under - 4 - Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and further that the petitioner will face the trial and he being local resident of District Kangra and has no criminal history could be released on bail. Contra Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the manner in which the offence is committed by the petitioner is a ghastly crime and the petitioner along with co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Dumunu Ram thus they are not entitled for bail. At this stage, the complete documentation of the pros and cons of the case is not required as it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. Thus prima facie considering the allegations for which the petitioner is put on trial and also the fact that he is a local resident with no other criminal history, could be enlarged on bail. However, suffice it to say, that in the facts placed before me, the petitioner has a case for bail and there is no allegation of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the prosecution, and reasonable conditions can be imposed by this court to secure the ends of justice, as such petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions:- - 5 - (i) That the petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the Police officer. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall present in the court as and when required; (iii)The petitioner shall not misuse his liberty of bail in any manner and shall not involve himself in any criminal activity during pendency of trial. In case, any of the above conditions are infracted by the petitioner, liberty of bail shall be cancelled. Any observation made hereinabove, shall not effect the merits of the case in any manner. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. May 20, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)