Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.332 of 2009. Dated of Decision: May 15, 2009. Rahul Sharma. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested on 26th December, 2008 in FIR No.59/08 dated 23.12.2008, registered under Sections 341, 353, 332, 333 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner failed to get the bail from the court of sessions, as such, the instant application has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for his enlargement on bail. Heard and gone through the report filed by the respondent-State. 2 Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that Shri Ram Krishan, hereinafter to be referred as “the deceased”, was an Assistant Lineman in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Nagrota Bagwan. On 22.12.2008, after finishing his duties, he was on his way to his village along with one Pawan Kumar @ Pappu. At about 10.15 p.m., the petitioner met them on the way and stopped the complainant proceeding further, thereafter attacked him and gave beatings with legs and fists blows and dragged him upto Sabzi Mandi. On seeing this, Pawan Kumar aforesaid ran away from the spot and informed the brother of the deceased Hari Krishan. By these bouts, the petitioner suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body. His tooth was also broken and the injured was left high and dry by side of the road. After some time, Hari Krishan and Pawan Kumar reached the spot later found by the son of the deceased. Finding Ram Krishan (deceased) in the seriously injured condition, took him to the Community Health Centre (CHC) Nagrota Bagwan. The police was informed and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The Medical Officer present in 3 the hospital examined the deceased and found the swelling on the left side of his head and also noticed two lacerated wounds along with injury on his teeth and other parts of the body and advised x-ray and CT scan of the head injury. The doctor referred the deceased to Rajinder Prasad Medical College, Tanda (Kangra). No fracture of the skull was detected. Since his condition was serious, he was further referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he died on 26.12.2008. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 341,353,323 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, but after his death, section 302 IPC was added. On the scrutiny of the record, it transpired that an inquiry was also held by the Superintendent of Police Kangra into the alleged episode, as the relatives of the deceased had complained against the police having caused injuries to the deceased, the copy of which is placed on record. During the inquiry, S.P. Kangra visited the spot and recorded the statements of 13 witnesses. It transpired to him that Constable Sudershan Kumar No.842 was on night duty in the police station. About 11 p.m., he received a 4 telephonic message from the petitioner, informing him that some persons had quarreled with him and asked for the police assistance. Said constable reported the matter to ASI Manohar Lal on his mobile phone, but after few minutes, a person reached the police station and told that accused-petitioner had given beating to him. In the meantime the petitioner also reached there along with the deceased. Simultaneously, ASI Manohar Lal also reached there and asked the injured persons about the name and address, but they could not tell anything as they were drunk. On this ASI Manohar Lal directed the constable to call the SHO. SHO on his reaching also made his efforts to ascertain their identity, but all in vain. It also came to light that the injured only disclosed that he was serving in the HPSEB and in case he is medically examined, he would loose his job. Thereafter Rahul petitioner and injured went out of the police station. At about 3.15 a.m., constable Sundershan Kumar informed ASI Manohar Lal on his mobile phone that the Medical Officer of CHC Nagrota Bagwan had informed about a medico legal case. Thus, he along with HC Swaran Roop Singh and Constable Kishan Singh rushed to the 5 hospital where HC Swaran Roop Singh recorded the statement of Ram Krishan under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and a case FIR No.59/08 was registered under Sections 341/ 323 IPC. The Superintendent of Police also recorded the statements of Hari Krishan, brother of the deceased and that of Pawan Kumar, along with Navrattan Katoch and Puneet. They did not mention that the deceased was beaten up by the accused-petitioner in Police Station. However, on the conclusion of the inquiry S.P. found SHO negligent by not recording the incident in to the Rapat Roznamcha, (daily diary) as such a show cause notice was issued to the SHO concerned. The challan in this case has been presented in the trial court against the petitioner which is pending for framing of the charge. The postmortem was conducted at PGI Chandigarh and the head injury was held to be responsible causing shock and death of the deceased. No fracture of the skull was seen as per the CT scan. On the perusal of the record produced before me, in my opinion, in the background of the above facts, the detention 6 of the accused-petitioner is not justified, as such, he is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner shall: (i) not temper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall present himself in the court as and when required to do so; and (ii) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. Needless to say that in case, the petitioner shall cause any breach of the conditions, mentioned above, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. Any observations made hereinabove, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. The application stands disposed of. Copy dasti on usual terms. May 15, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.