IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 766 of 2009 Date of decision: September 9, 2009. Daulat Ram & ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 20 of 2009 registered on 11.5.2009 at Police Station, Shillai, under Sections 452, 307, 304, 147, 148, 149 IPC. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that Tulsi Ram injured had died on 29.8.2009, therefore, Section 302 IPC has been added. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that FIR No. 20 of 2009 was registered on the complaint of Smt. Kiri Devi wife of Tulsi Ram, which was made by her to Additional Superintendent of Police, Nahan on 9.5.2009 alleging therein that the petitioners had given beatings to her husband, who fell on the ground and sustained injuries. Tulsi Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Ram was taken to Herbertpur, thereafter to PGI Chandigarh and then to Nahan from where he was again referred to PGI Chandigarh. It has been submitted that petitioners earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 367 of 2009 in this court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 26.6.2009. The injured has died and, therefore, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest as the case has been converted into Section 302 IPC. It has been submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The injured has died on 28/29.8.2009, whereas the alleged beatings were administered in February 2009, therefore, according to petitioners no case under Section 302 IPC is made out against them. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are ready to join the investigation even though investigation is almost complete. The petitioners have prayed for grant of bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that injured Tulsi Ram had made a statement before Executive Magistrate, Shillai on 29.6.2009 and stated that in the month of Falgun, Bansi Ram, Jalam Singh, Daulat Ram, Liaq Ram, Suresh, Pratap all residents of village Bhorar had trespassed into his courtyard and gave him beatings. Daulat Ram, Bansi Ram, Liaq Ram were holding lathies. Thereafter he became unconscious. It is common case of the parties that Tulsi Ram later on died. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied post mortem report of deceased Tulsi Ram where the doctors have opined that deceased died as a result of multiple organ failure due to septicemia in a case of head and spinal cord injury. The …3… learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that statement made by the deceased on 29.6.2009 is dying declaration of deceased Tulsi Ram and he has clearly named all the petitioners. According to investigating agency Surinder Kumar and Suresh named by Tulsi Ram is one and the same person. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioners gave severe beatings to Tulsi Ram and despite treatment at various hospitals, Tulsi Ram died later on. He has submitted that it is a clear cut case under Section 302 IPC and has prayed for dismissal of bail application. The further submission of learned Additional Advocate General is that petitioners cannot take benefit of earlier order passed by this court granting bail to petitioners on 26.6.2009 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As per prosecution case, Tulsi Ram was given beatings by the petitioners and he died on 29.8.2009. The bail was granted to the petitioners on 26.6.2009 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., but at that time Section 302 IPC was not added in FIR No. 20 of 2009 dated 11.5.2009. The deceased on 29.6.2009 had made the statement implicating the petitioners. In the status report, it has been submitted that recoveries are yet to be made from the petitioners and they are to be intensively interrogated. It is thus clear that as per investigating agency, the investigation of the case is still going on. It has also been stated in the status report that petitioners did not join the investigation after they were released on anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. …4… 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 9, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.