IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.186 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.3.2008. Tara Chand ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.48 dated 8.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Solan under Sections 323, 324, 498-A IPC at the instance of Usha Sharma wife of the petitioner. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Usha Sharma accompanied with one Nirmla Devi came to Police Post Saproon and reported that her husband is a habitual drunkard and after taking drinks, he quarrels with the complainant and gives her beatings. On 8.3.2008 at about 1 O’clock in the night her husband Tara Chand Sharma came in a Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 drunken condition in the house and started abusing and giving beatings to the complainant. He took kitchen knife from the kitchen and hit the complainant on her face and neck, as a result of which blood started oozing out. The complainant with difficulty got herself released from the accused and approached Nirmla Devi and then both of them came to Police Post. The complainant was medically examined and as per doctor some injuries were found on the person of the complainant. Injury No.1 in the opinion of the doctor, was caused with sharp edged weapon whereas injury No.2 is simple. The investigation in the case is almost complete. Only report from Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the nature of duties of the petitioner are such that he usually comes late to his house which is not liked by her wife complainant. On 7.3.2008 he reached his residence at about 9.30 PM, the complainant got annoyed with the late coming of the petitioner and attacked the petitioner. The petitioner unintentionally pushed the complainant which caused some injuries on her person. The petitioner also received some injuries on his head when complainant attacked him with knife. He has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has joined the investigation. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner shall comply with the bail conditions, if he is released on bail. 5. The petitioner and complainant are husband and wife. They have grown up sons aged 22 and 20 years and both of them are studying. It is unfortunate that after more than 22 years of marriage they are leveling allegations and counter allegations against each other in a criminal case. They have grown up sons who are likely to be married shortly, it is in the interest of both petitioner and complainant that they should live peacefully. 3 The fact remains that prosecution has not alleged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the case. In the status report it has been stated that report from Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited. The investigation in the case is almost complete. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.48 dated 8.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Solan under Sections 323, 324, 498-A IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioner shall join the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer as and when called. He will not hamper the investigation and terrorize any witness connected with the case and tamper the prosecution evidence. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 26, 2008 (sks)