JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, Vacation J. - The petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR number 19/2019 dated 9.9.2019, registered under Sections 341, 302, 201, 120(B), 34 of Indian the Penal Code, 1860 , in the file of Police Station, Pooh, District Kinnaur, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , seeking regular bail. 2. Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report(s) as well as the Police report under Section 173(2) CrPC , to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and heard learned Counsel for the parties. Facts 3. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is that on September 9, 2019, Prakash Chand, son of Shri Tenjin, R/o Village Khab, P.O. Namagya, Tehsil Pooh, District Kinnaur, made a report to Police Station, Pooh. Vide that report, Prakash Chand informed the Police that his son Sonam Dorje is missing from 11:00 p.m. of September 7, 2019. He further stated that his vehicle is abandoned at a place known as Bhagat Nalla and one tyre is deflated. After missing of his son, he stated that he alongwith family members and relatives made frantic efforts for his search, but failed and having lost all hopes, they approached the Police Station requesting the Police to help in his search. 4. After that, on September 9, 2019, complainant Prakash Chand made a statement to the Police that on September 7, 2019, his son alongwith four Nepalis labour was collecting sand from nearby rivulet. He did not return home on September 7, 2019 then in the morning of next day, he reached Pooh at a place known as Bhagat Nalla, where one of such labourer who was walking with his son Sonam Dorje met him. The said Nepali told him that during the night of September 7, 2019, these people were collecting sand from Satluj river at Bhagat Nalla. Another team was also collecting sand and the said team comprised of five Nepalis labour and driver of Contractor Dila Ram. The said Nepalis people and the driver had entered into a scuffle with Sonam Dorje as well as the labourer engaged by him. After that, they threatened him of dire consequence and proclaimed that they will teach them a lesson. The said Nepalis people and the driver had entered into a scuffle with Sonam Dorje as well as the labourer engaged by him. After that, they threatened him of dire consequence and proclaimed that they will teach them a lesson. After that, Sonam Dorje alongwith his labour was proceeding towards the road and then they noticed some people standing there with torch and sticks. They had created blockade on road by placing big boulders. At that time, his son was driving the vehicle and Himal Thapa was sitting with him and the other Nepalis were sitting the carriage portion of the vehicle. Himal Thapa further told Prakash Chand that his son Sonam Dorje alighted from his vehicle and went towards these people but did not return. He further revealed that on seeing the gang, all the Nepalis labour accompanying Sonam Dorje ran away. 5. Prakash Chand further told the Police that he has come to know that following persons were standing there alongwith torch and sticks, namely (I) Dila Ram (ii) Sundoop (iii) Luxman Singh (iv) Shashi Bhushan and he also gave details and parentage of the persons. Prakash Chand further told the Police that he is certain that these people have kidnapped his son, killed him and disposed of his body and they are involved in such offence. 6. He further stated that his son had earlier told him that Luxman Singh asked him not to collect sand from Bhagat Nalla and warned him with dire consequences, if he further more collects the sand. He further stated that he has recovered the slippers of his son from the banks of Satluj river. On the basis of such information, the Police registered FIR under Sections 341, 364, 34, in which later on Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code have been added. After that, the Police swung into action and recorded statements of the Nepalis labour and did further investigation. On September 24, 2019, the Police got the statement of Himal Thapa recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Recong-Peo. 7. Himal Thapa stated in his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC that on September 7, 2019 in the evening, he accompanied by Sonam Dorje, Rajinder, Jeevan, Harish had gone to Bhat Nalla to collect sand. He further stated that they had loaded the sand in the Pick-up Jeep No.HP-63-T-2805 . 7. Himal Thapa stated in his statement under Section 154 Cr.PC that on September 7, 2019 in the evening, he accompanied by Sonam Dorje, Rajinder, Jeevan, Harish had gone to Bhat Nalla to collect sand. He further stated that they had loaded the sand in the Pick-up Jeep No.HP-63-T-2805 . He further stated that he (Himal Thapa) alongwith Harish stayed in Bhagat Nalla, whereas the other people went in the Jeep to unload the sand from it. He further stated that before their Jeep could return to the Bhagat Nalla, the Jeep of Dila Ram, Contractor reached there. In the said Jeep, apart from driver, there were three Nepalis labour, namely Amar and Dalip. He told that he did not know the name of 3 rd person. 8. These people started lifting the sand collected by Himal Thapa and Harish and started loading the same in their Jeep. At that time, Sonam Dorje reached there. 9. On reaching Bhagat Nalla, Sonam Dorje asked those people not to carry the sand collected by his people. He also gave a slap to one of the person who were loading the Jeep. 10. After that, those people loaded their Jeep from other places and left. Thereafter, they loaded the sand in the Jeep of Sonam Dorje. And travelled in the Jeep to Pooh. Sonam Dorge was driving the said Jeep. Jeevan and Rajinder sat back in Bhagat Nalla to collect the sand. 11. He further stated that when these people reached mid way, then Jeevan made a Phone call to Sonam Dorje and told him while crying that Dila Ram had beaten them. On this, Sonam Dorje reversed the vehicle and all these people reached Bhagat Nalla. 12. On reaching Bhagat Nalla, Sonam Dorje slapped those persons and warned them that why they are they indulging in scuffle. On this, those people ran away from Bhagat Nalla. 13. After that, all those four Nepalis labour alongwith Sonam Dorje returned in the Pick-up. They reached Pooh at 8:00-9:00 p.m. During the same evening, these people again went Bhagat Nalla 3 rd time and loaded the vehicle. At that time, the vehicle of Dila Ram came in the main road and it stopped there. 14. After that, Sonam Dorje alongwith his labour came towards the main road in the Pick-up. The vehicle of Dila Ram had halted in the main road. At that time, the vehicle of Dila Ram came in the main road and it stopped there. 14. After that, Sonam Dorje alongwith his labour came towards the main road in the Pick-up. The vehicle of Dila Ram had halted in the main road. 3-4 people were staying on the road. One person was carrying a Danda. Those persons signaled to stop their Pick-up. They had also blocked the road by placing boulders. 15. Sonam Dorje stopped the vehicle and at that time, Dila Ram reached there. Dalip Nepali was also with him. Dila Ram started talking to Sonam Dorje and reached the main road. Out of the people who were standing on the road, on person handedover stick to Dalip. After that, Dalip inflicted a blow with stick on the head of Sonam Dorje. On receiving the blow from the stick, Sonam Dorje fell down on the road. On seeing this, Himal Thapa and other labour ran away from the spot. He stated that Harish, Rajinder and Jeevan alongwith him ran away from the spot after jumping from the vehicle because they got afraid on seeking sticks in the hands of the gang. 16. During investigation, the Police recorded statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC of Rajinder, Jeevan Thapa and Harish Thapa, which were almost to the similar effect. The Police recorded statement of Dalip under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and recovered the pipe. After that, the Police recovered the Pick-up and collected blood stains from it. Thereafter, the Police took the samples from the complainant Prakash Chand for DNA profiling for matching the same with the blood recovered from the Jeep. Vide report dated January 1, 2020, the Deputy Director, DNA Division of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, H.P. opined that the DNA did not match. Subsequently the police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the CrPC and arrested the petitioner. Analysis And Reasoning : 17. The time of occurrence is late night on a secluded road where there was no source of light, except the headlights of the vehicle. Witness Himal Thapa and other witnesses namely Rajinder, Jeevan Thapa and Harish Thapa could only identify Dila Ram and Dalip Nepali. They specifically stated that Dalip Nepali had inflicted a blow on the head of Sonam Dorje. There is no averment about identification of other persons, including the petitioner. Witness Himal Thapa and other witnesses namely Rajinder, Jeevan Thapa and Harish Thapa could only identify Dila Ram and Dalip Nepali. They specifically stated that Dalip Nepali had inflicted a blow on the head of Sonam Dorje. There is no averment about identification of other persons, including the petitioner. Consequently, whereas the case of Dalip Nepali as well as Dila Ram, whose presence has been accepted by Himal Thapa and other labourers and especially by Himal Thapa under Section 154 Cr.PC , would be on different footings than the present bail petitioner. 18. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State. The material so collected is not sufficient to deny them bail and to continue them with incarceration. 19. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, the judicial custody of the petitioner/accused is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, and I am inclined to grant bail on the following grounds, but subject to stringent conditions: (a) The report under Section 173(2) CrPC stands filed. (b) The petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 9.10.2019. (c) The petitioner is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of parties, as such presence can always be secured. (d) The petitioner has no criminal history. 20. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of INR 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Addnl. Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Judicial Magistrate of District Kinnaur, HP. 21. The Court executing the personal and surety bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, his family members, and of sureties, through AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Ration Card, etc. The petitioner shall mention phone numbers and other details, on the reverse page of the bonds. 22. The Counsel for the accused and the attesting official shall explain all conditions of this bail to the petitioner. 23. The petitioner shall mention phone numbers and other details, on the reverse page of the bonds. 22. The Counsel for the accused and the attesting official shall explain all conditions of this bail to the petitioner. 23. This Court is granting the bail, subject to the conditions mentioned herein. The petitioner/accused undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order, and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner/accused is acceptance of all such conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants, and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court, if such Court directs to do so. (ii) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. However, whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the accused shall not be called before 9 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. (v) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (vi) The petitioner undertakes not to threaten or browbeat or use any pressure tactics on the victims, complainant, and witnesses. (vii) The petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. (viii) The petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (ix) In case the petitioner commits any offence prescribing the sentence of imprisonment of more than seven years, within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioner shall intimate SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR. In such a situation, it shall be open for the State to apply to this Court for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper. (x) Within 30 days from today, the petitioner shall sell, or surrender, all firearms along with ammunition, and arms licenses, if any, to the authority which had given such permission. 24. In such a situation, it shall be open for the State to apply to this Court for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper. (x) Within 30 days from today, the petitioner shall sell, or surrender, all firearms along with ammunition, and arms licenses, if any, to the authority which had given such permission. 24. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental or other rights, or any human rights, or faces any other difficulty due to any condition, then, the petitioner may file a reasoned application for modification of such term(s). 25. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the petitioner. 26. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. Copy dasti.