IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 793 of 2011. Date of decision: 10.10.2011. Vikram Singh ….. 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. N.K.Thakur & Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advoctes. 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. 190 of 2011 dated 4.9.2011, registered at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307,506 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated one Rajinder Thakur claiming himself to be the President of Taxi Union of Bus Stand lodged a report on 4.9.2011 that when he alongwith other taxi drivers was present in the taxi stand, five six vehicles packed with many persons came from Tutikandi side, who were armed with “Dandas” and weapons, they attacked the complainant and other taxi drivers, as a result of which they sustained injuries. On this, the case has been registered. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. It has been stated that petitioner has committed no offence, on the contrary the complainant party, who were large in number quarreled with the persons of taxi union of ISBT Shimla over the issue of taxi union in the newly shifted bus stand of Shimla. The petitioner has nothing to do with either of the taxi union but he has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been stated that no prima-facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out. 4. The petitioner is in custody since 5.9.2011. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The petitioner filed earlier bail application, which has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla on 21.9.2011. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that petitioner is in judicial custody till 13.10.2011. Dinesh Kumar Chopra, Kohli, Nindu, Kaku and Boxer are still to be arrested. It has been stated that FIR No. 20 dated 10.3.2005 under Excise Act was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Kandaghat. However, in that case the petitioner has been acquitted on 30.9.2006. FIR No. 112/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, East Shimla on 24.6.2007 and the case is pending in the court. FIR No. 208/2008 dated 10.8.2008, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 120-B IPC has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sadar Shimla and the case is pending trial. FIR No. 26/2010 dated 27.3.2010 under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC against the petitioner has been registered at Police Station, East Shimla and the case is pending trial. Rakesh Negi with the help of co-accused had thrown Mahender Singh from parking floor to 20 feet down below on railway track …3… as a result of which he sustained injuries. An attempt was made to kill him. The investigating agency has shown apprehension that in case petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to influence the witnesses. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Cr.MP (M) No. 754 of 2011 this court has released on bail Rakesh Negi in FIR No. 190 of 2011 dated 4.9.2011 registered at police station, Sadar Shimla. It has been stated that on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to bail. 7. In the past four other cases were registered against the petitioner, however in one case registered at Police Station, Kandaghat the petitioner has been acquitted. In other three cases the petitioner is still facing trial. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that keeping in view past conduct of the petitioner, he may not be released on bail. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General inasmuch as the record shows that in the recent past the petitioner is involved in some cases and petitioner is facing trial atleast in three cases. Thus keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected. October 10, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.