IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 592 of 2011. Date of decision : 11.08.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Pawan Dhiman. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 36/2010 registered on 22.03.2010 at Police Station, Bhawarana, under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The status report filed, record perused. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR No. 36/2010 was registered at Police Station, Bhawarana, on 22.03.2010 on account of multiple injuries sustained by Piar Chand. On 24.03.2010,Dalip Raj brother of the deceased submitted an application to the police and raised suspicion that his brother was killed by Sanjay Kumar since few days earlier the deceased Piar Chand was engaged __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 as driver by Sanjay Kumar for driving a tipper, but thereafter Piar Chand left the job of Sanjay Kumar. There was a dispute between Sanjay Kumar and the deceased on account of amount of diesel. Therefore, on the basis of suspicion raised by Dalip Raj brother of the deceased, initially, case registered under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was converted into Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent. He is apprehending his arrest in FIR No. 36/2010. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender on 30th July, 2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,(1), Palampur. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 36/2010, challan was submitted in the Court against four persons including the petitioner. The other three persons have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra on 14.07.2011. It has been submitted that on account of registration of FIR No. 36/2010 at Police Station, Bhawarana, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case. The case is completely false, three other accused have already been acquitted. The petitioner has prayed bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The bail application has been opposed by Additional Advocate General on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious case. He has been declared proclaimed offender on 30.07.2010. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of acquittal of three other accused, he has not faced the trial. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 3 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The conduct of the petitioner is not clean. He absconded and has been declared proclaimed offender on 30.07.2010. The acquittal of the other three accused in the case is of no help to the petitioner, who did not face the trial. The petitioner is involved in a serious case. He is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 11, 2011 . (Kuldip Singh) (Krt) Judge.