IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No. 1074 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.12.2009 Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009 1.Rachna Devi …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ Cr.MP(M) No. 1074 of 2009 2. Ramesh Chand ..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. Arush Matlotia, Advocate vice Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. R.P.Singh Assistant, Advocate General. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.1073 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.1074 of 2009 filed by Smt. Rachna Devi and Ramesh Chand, respectively for releasing them on bail under Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2 Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 435 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009 registered at Police Station, Una, under Sections 447, 323, 307, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009, it has been submitted that petitioner has been implicated in a false case. The incident allegedly took place on 18.11.2009. It is the case of the investigating agency that the matter was compromised between the parties but the FIR was registered on 23.11.2009. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),Una on 3.12.2009 mainly on the grounds that the petitioner did not join the investigation and recovery was to be effected. The petitioner is innocent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. In Cr.MP(M) No. 1074 of 2009 more or less same grounds have been taken for releasing the petitioner on bail as have been taken by the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009. 3. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that both the petitioners have committed serious offence. On 23.11.2009 a telephonic information was received at Police Post, Mehatpur from Primary Health Centre, Dehla that injured Balwant Rai had come for treatment at the Primary Health Centre and he has received injuries in some quarrel. On this, police party went to Primary Health Centre, Dehla and got the 3 injured medically examined, statement of injured Balwant Rai was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant in his statement has stated that on 18.11.2009 he, his daughters-in-law Manjeet Devi and Neena Devi at about 2.30 p.m. were irrigating their fields. Ramesh Chand and his wife Rachna Devi came there and objected why the complainant party was irrigating their fields. Ramesh Chand was holding spade and Rachna Devi was holding sickle. The complainant party told Ramesh Chand that the complainant party was not damaging the fields of Ramesh Chand but in the meantime, Ramesh Chand gave a spade blow on the head of the complainant and Rachna Devi gave sickle blow on the right hand thumb of the complainant, as a result of which head and hand of the complainant started bleeding. The complainant was rescued by his daughters-in- law. He was taken to Dehla hospital where the doctor treated him and asked him to go to home. He and his brother compromised the matter but his brother continued to extend threats to him. 4. On 23.11.2009 due to the injuries sustained by complainant, he again felt necessity for medical aid and, therefore, he wanted to take legal action against the assailants. On this case was registered. It has been stated in the status report that Balwant Rai remained admitted at P.G.I., Chandigarh on 23.11.2009 and 24.11.2009. On 24.11.2009 PGI doctors referred the complainant for further treatment at referral hospital, Una. The condition of the complainant deteriorated on 27.11.2009 and he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana where he remained under treatment till 18.12.2009. The recoveries of spade and sickle have been made. It has been stated 4 by the learned Assistant Advocate General that investigation in the case is almost complete. The petitioners had earlier filed bail applications which were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Una. The learned Assistant Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of both the applications. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place on 18.11.2009 as per the complainant. The complainant has alleged that both the petitioners attacked the complainant with spade and sickle. The injured was medically examined on 23.11.2009 at 2.30 p.m. The doctor has given probable duration of injuries 72 hours. The case of the complainant is that he was injured by petitioners on 18.11.2009. It is also the case of the investigating agency that at one point of time the matter was settled between the parties and even a writing to this effect was prepared. I have gone through the writing dated 20.11.2009 from the police file and in that writing allegations have been made against Ramesh Chand only and not against his wife. 6. It has been stated that the petitioners have joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The spade and sickle have also been recovered. The investigation in the case is almost complete. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. In the status report nothing has been stated for what purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. There is vague allegation in the status report that in case the petitioners are released on bail then 5 they may terrorize the prosecution witnesses. There is nothing on record in support of this apprehension of the investigating agency. 7. In view of above, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both the applications being Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1073 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1074 of 2009 are allowed. Both the petitioners in the event of their arrest are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 435 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009 registered at Police Station, Una, under Sections 447, 323, 307, 34 IPC on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner or terrorise the prosecution witnesses. Smt. Rachna Devi petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009 is a woman, she shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. 8. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of these petitions only and shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. December 28, 2009. (GR) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 1074 of 2009. Date of decision: 28.12.2009 Ramesh Chand ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, vice Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). For judgment, see judgment of date rendered in Cr.M.P(M) No. 1073 of 2009 titled Rachna Devi vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge December 28, 2009. (GR) _______________________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes