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.1095 of 2010 Dated of Decision: October 8, 2010. Gurcharan Singh. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner herein was arrested in case under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in terms of FIR No.56/10, registered on 14.4.2010, in Police Station Baijnath. His application for bail was rejected twice by the court of Sessions, as such, he approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for his enlargement on bail. 2 2. The challan was presented in the Court and has now been fixed for 30.10.2010 for evidence of the prosecution. 3. In short, the prosecution case is that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who committed suicide by hanging herself on 14.4.2010 in her matrimonial home in village Harer, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. within three years of her marriage leaving behind her one year child. She was found to have written on her arm that her mother-in-law was responsible for her death. 4. The petitioner is a mason by profession. Except the statement of Pradhan, who is alleged to have been complained of about the alleged cruelty having been meted out by the petitioner and his mother prior to the alleged incident, there appears to be nothing on record, to show the involvement of the petitioner in this case. The father of the deceased apprehended the involvement of the petitioner for causing torture and cruelty to his deceased daughter. Further criticism of the evidence collected during the investigation is to be avoided at this stage as it would be prejudicial to 3 one of the parties, therefore, I have deliberately desisted from it, but suffice to say that at this stage the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on reasonable terms and conditions, as such the application is allowed. 5. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of ` 10,000/- 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 further conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall present himself before the learned trial Court on 30th October, 2010, on which date this case if fixed for evidence of the prosecution and thereafter, he shall regularly keep on attending the court 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 case so as to dissuade him from disclosing 4 such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and (c ) shall not terrorize the witnesses in any manner. 6. Needless to say that if the petitioner shall commit breach of the conditions aforesaid the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. 7. The observations made hereinabove are strictly for the disposal of this bail application and shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner and the learned trial Court shall decide the case before it on its own merits. 8. Let an authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, 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. 9. Application stands disposed of. October 8, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.