1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 968 of 2011 & Cr.M.P.(M) No. 969 of 2011. Date of decision: 29.11.2011. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 968 of 2011. Dinesh Kumar Sood ......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 969 of 2011. Ajnesh Kumar Sood ......Petitioner Versus 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. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No. 968 of 2011 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 969 of 2011 both filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., both the petitions have arisen out of FIR No. 185/10, dated 4.9.2010, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, under Sections 447, 336 IPC and 9(B) of Explosives Act. 2. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 968 of 2011, it has been stated that the bail petitioner was levelling his 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 residential plot, which is situated at Village Hathni-Ki-Dhar, Shimla. The entire levelling work was being executed manually and through JCB. The petitioner never used any explosive substance for levelling his aforesaid plot. The petitioner and his brother have been involved in the case for political reasons. The petitioner has committed no offence. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner is innocent. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 969 of 2011, similar grounds have been taken, as taken by the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 968 of 2011. The prayer in this application has also been made for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 968 of 2011. It has been stated that an application was received in the Police Station through the Superintendent of Police, Shimla on 28.8.2010. It has been stated in the application that unlawful and unauthorized mining operation is being done adjoining to the forest land and land belonging to the Indian Army. It has been further stated that it is not understandable how blasting work has been allowed to be done on the land, which will damage Defence land and forest land, which is 3 on the lower side. It has been alleged that huge quantities of stones are being extracted from the spot and are sold illegally. On this, case has been registered. 5. It has come in investigation that there is a stone mine at a distance of 100 metres from the land in question, from where soil and small pieces of stones were taken into possession and sent to SFSL, Junga. The first site was found in possession of the petitioners. It has not been found that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession of the said land. The second site was found on PWD land, but was lying closed. As per the SFSL report, explosives were used on the second site. On the land in question for extracting stones, as per the report of SFSL, use of explosives was not found. It has come during investigation that off and on the accused had been extracting stones from Khasra No.23/2 and using explosives and endangering human life and property. The petitioners have joined the investigation, but they are not disclosing from where they have brought the explosives for extracting the stones. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail petitions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the records. 7. The status report filed by the 4 investigating agency is not straight. On one hand in the status report, it has been stated that as per SFSL report, no use of explosives was found on the land of the petitioners, but on the other hand, it has been stated that it has come during investigation that the petitioners had been using explosives off and on for extracting the stones from the site in question. There is another site at a distance of 100 metres on the land of PWD, but that is lying closed. The SFSL, Junga, as per its report, has reported that the explosives were used for extracting stones from this site. There is no allegation that the petitioners are extracting the stones by using explosives from the second site. No recovery is to be made. In the status report, it has not been stated that for what purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, unauthorized possession of the petitioners has not been found on the land in question. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above, both Cr.M.P.(M) No.968 of 2011 and Cr.M.P.(M) No.969 of 2011 are allowed and the petitioners in both these petitions, in the event of arrest are directed to be released on bail, in FIR No. 185/10, dated 4.9.2010, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, under Sections 447, 336 IPC and 9 (B) of Explosives Act, on their furnishing 5 personal bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail petitions and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'dasti'. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. November 29, 2011. (pankaj)