IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.994 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.995 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.11.2009 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 994 of 2009 Krishan Lal …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 995 of 2009 Gaurav ..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(s) : Mr. S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) Krishan Lal petitioner has filed Cr.MP(M) No. 994 of 2009 and Gaurav petitioner has filed Cr.MP(M) No. 995 of 2009 for Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 releasing them on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 159 of 2009 dated 8.7.2009 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala under Sections 498 (A), 294, 323, 34 IPC. Both the petitions are being disposed of by common judgment. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.994 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.MP(M) No. 994 of 2009, it has been alleged that case has been registered at the instance of Smt. Anju daughter-in-law of petitioner Krishan Lal. It has been alleged that son and daughter of petitioner have also been implicated in the case. The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 7.11.2009. The petitioner is innocent. He is an old man of 74 years and had already suffered mild paralytic attack in July, 2009. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. In Cr.MP(M) No. 995 of 2009 which has been filed at the instance of husband of Smt. Anju, it has been alleged that Smt. Anju has falsely implicated the petitioner, father-in-law and sister-in-law. The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 7.11.2009. The petitioner is innocent. He is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. The bail applications have been opposed by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. It has been stated in the status report that the case was registered at the instance of Smt. Anju Sabharwal when she 3 reported the matter on 8.7.2009. In brief, the allegations against the petitioners are that marriage of the complainant took place with petitioner Gaurav in January, 2005. The complainant has alleged that both the petitioners and her sister-in-law Banita had been ill-treating the complainant soon after the marriage on the ground that complainant could not bear the child. Both the petitioners had given beatings to the complainant on several occasions after consuming liquor. She was given beatings on 6.7.2009 and 7.7.2009. The complainant ultimately called her brothers and reported the matter to the police and the case was registered. It has been stated in the status report that all the three accused had filed their anticipatory bail applications but the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to accused Banita and rejected the bail applications of Krishan Lal and Gaurav. It has also been stated in the status report that investigation in the case is complete and no recoveries are to be made. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail applications. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It has been stated in the status report that both the petitioners have joined the investigation on 12.11.2009, 14.11.2009 and 16.11.2009. There is nothing in the status report that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation or they have created any hurdle in the investigation. As per investigating agency, the investigation is complete and no recoveries are to be made from the petitioners. It has been stated that challan is likely to be submitted in the court very shortly. 4 5. In these circumstances, both the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail to them under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 159/2009 dated 8.7.2009 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 IPC, both the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Copy Dasti ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. November 19, 2009. (GR) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No.995 of 2009. Date of decision: 19.11.2009 Gaurav ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 994 of 2009 titled Krishan Lal vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. November 19, 2009. (GR)