1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.705 of 2008. Date of decision: 22.7.2008. Babu Ram ………. 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. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 74/07 registered on 18.10.2007 at Police Station, Babanagar, District Kinnaur under Sections 302/34 IPC. The respondent has filed status report. 2. Head and perused the record. On the basis of statement uner Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Kumari Sujata, FIR No.74/07 was registered at Police Station, Babanagar on 18.10.2007. The complainant in her statement has stated that she heard the cries from the house of Babu Ram which is situated on the upper side of their house and a person named Karam Chand had a fall from stairs, who balanced himself during the process of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 fall. Thereafter Babu Ram and Karam Chand started fighting near the house of Babu Ram and in that process both of them fell down. Basanti wife of Babu Ram and another woman came there and started beating Karam Chand with shoes. Those women thereafter lifted Babu Ram and Muna also came there. Muna and Charan Lal took Karam Chand to hospital where Karam Chand died. The accused in the case were arrested and after completion of investigation challan has been filed in the Court. The accused Thakur Dayali and Basanti Devi have been released on bail by the High Court. The bail application of the petitioner has been opposed on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious case and if he is released on bail he can influence the prosecution witnesses. The learned Addl. Advocate General has stated that even the charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that as per prosecution some grappling took place between petitioner and deceased in the house of the petitioner and both of them had fallen down near the cow-shed of the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 8.11.2007. It has been submitted that there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner. The deceased entered the house of the petitioner in drunken state and started hurling abuses and filthy language to the petitioner and his family. In this situation the petitioner asked the deceased to go to his own house and at that stage the deceased 3 caught hold the petitioner from his clothes and both of them had fallen down the path. It has also been submitted that two women accused in the case have been released on bail by this Court on 14.5.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court and the petitioner may be released on bail. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that during investigation involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence has been established. The postmortem report has shown several injuries on the body of the deceased including on his private parts. The two women accused no doubt have been released on bail by this Court but for the purposes of bail the case of petitioner is not similar to the case of two women accused who have been released on bail. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The perusal of postmortem report of the deceased does indicate several injuries on the body of the deceased including on his private parts, how the deceased got those injuries that will be seen during trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that there is nothing on record against the petitioner. I have perused the statements of Muna alias Sat Parkash and Ajit Kumar. The complainant in her statement has stated that petitioner and Karam Chand started fighting near the house of the petitioner and in that process they fell down. The part attributed to petitioner for the commission of the offence is not similar to the part attributed to two women accused. The 4 petitioner is involved in a serious case. The charge under Section 302 IPC has already been framed against accused. The learned Addl. Advocate General has also stated that in case petitioner is released on bail, he may influence the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly petition dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge July 22, 2007 (sks)