Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. M.P.(M) No.967 of 2010 with Cr.M.P.(M) No. 968 of 2010. Dated of Decision: September 15, 2010. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No.967/2010. Rakesh Kumar. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …….. Respondent. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No.968/2010. Hem Chand @ Hem Raj and another. … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent. For the Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Surinder Singh, J (oral): Both the petitions for seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are arising from the same FIR, hence taken up together for its decision. 2 2. In FIR No.30/2009 dated 27th April, 2009, the petitioners were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly for causing the murder of one Shiv Kumar, Chowkidar, working in ‘Phirali Ole Power House’ on 26.4.2009 around 8.15 p.m. outside the temporary shed of PW Patrang. The bail was declined to them by the learned Sessions Judge, hence the aforesaid applications have been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking bail. 3. The report was called for. Perused and considered the matter. 4. The challan is pending consideration of charge in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar against the petitioners and other co-accused, namely Ranjit Singh son of Mohar Singh, Het Raj, Jagdish Rakesh Kumar etc. Two of them namely another Ranjeet and Raju both juvenile, are being tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. 5. The bail to the petitioners herein has been opposed. Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional 3 Advocate General vehemently argued that the petitioners stand connected with the alleged offence in view of the statements of Lalit Kumar, Patrang Dang and Bhoj Bahadur, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submitted that the aforesaid witnesses stood identified at the time of conducting test identification parade (TIP) before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar. 6. Contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the statement of aforesaid witnesses are gone into, neither the petitioners were identified nor there is any other evidence on record to connect them with the alleged offence. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record produced before me. 8. PWs Bhoj Bahadur and Patrang Dang both are labourer, belonging to outside the State, whereas, Lalit Kumar is a minor and local resident of village Phirali Ole. 4 9. The first incident is alleged to have been taken place with Lalit Kumar during the same night, who is alleged to have sustained injuries and was also got medically examined by the police. The forensic report confirms that his vest and lowers contained human blood of Group-B. Neither he is accused in the case nor an approver. However, as per his statement, he identified Jagdish assailant alongwith other named therein and according to him, after the incident he had fled away from the place and stayed in the house of Sat Pal for the night, thereafter he was informed by said Sat Pal that out of one of the assailants, Shiv Kumar has been murdered, but PW Patrang did not name but only identified accused Ranjeet whereas Bhoj Bahadur who was present on the Power House at the relevant time had identified Jagdish petitioner and not Hem Chand, whereas Rakesh Kumar was also not identified either by Bhoj Bahadur or Patrang, but his name did find mentioned in the statement of Lalit Kumar. 10. The record also reveals Lalit Kumar was arrested in this case, but later he was let off by the 5 police itself. The further discussion of the evidence in the matter may prejudice the case of either of the parties, therefore, suffice to say that at this stage, the bail is only available to Hem Chand @ Hem Raj and Rakesh Kumar and not to Jagdish. Accordingly, the petitions of Hem Chand @ Hem Raj and Rakesh Kumar are allowed and qua petitioner Jagdish is dismissed. Both the petitioners namely Hem Chand @ Hem Raj and Rakesh Kumar are ordered to be enlarged on bail on their furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall present themselves before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar on 29.9.2010 on which date the case is fixed for consideration of charge and thereafter on each dates during the trial of the case; (b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the 6 case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and (c ) In case the petitioners shall make any breach of the conditions aforesaid or mis- utilized their liberty of bail in any way, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. 11. The observations made hereinabove are strictly for the disposal of these bail petitions and shall not be affect the merits of this case in any manner. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Judicial Magistrate Rampur, for information and necessary action at his end and in case the parties apply for urgent copy of this order, the same shall be supplied to them immediately, as per rules. 13. Both the applications stand disposed of. September 15, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.