IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.615 of 2011. Date of decision: 18.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Prem Chand Thakur. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application for releasing the applicant on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 132 of 2011, registered on 18.07.2011 at Police Station, Barmana, under Section 406 IPC. The status report has been filed, record perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that Padam Chand Rohal has lodged an FIR stating that applicant was his Special Power of Attorney and was executing the work of road construction from ‘Kasol to Padhiar’. It has been alleged that petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust. The complainant earlier lodged a complaint at Police Station, Kandaghat, but police did not find that applicant has committed any offence. Thereafter, complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station, Sadar, but again police did not find any offence committed by the applicant. Thereafter, complainant filed Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who ordered investigation. 3. It has been stated that applicant is neither concerned nor connected in any manner with the offence alleged against him. In any case the dispute is of civil nature, FIR is nothing but misuse of process of law. The applicant is ready to join investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General and has submitted that during investigation tractor along with trolley has been recovered from an isolated place near village Kasol. The HPPWD had given contract of road from Kasol to Padhiar 5 km ,430 metres for rupees One crore thirty three lacs in favour of Padam Chand Rohal, who executed Special Power of Attorney dated 28.02.2008 in favour of applicant. The complainant handed over many items mentioned in the status report such as tractor along with trolley one, compressor one, three jack hammers , five jer rods, jack hammer air pipe 500 metres, two mixers. The other items are implements used in construction and other household articles including bedsheets, blankets, cookers, gas, gas-stone, CGI sheets, glasses and other items used by labour. It has been alleged that applicant had left the work and misappropriated the articles handed over to him or sold the same. 5. It has been stated in the status report that applicant has joined the investigation. The applicant offered the complainant for settlement of accounts. The complainant was not making him the …3… payments, therefore, the applicant stopped attending the work. He has stated that another man Ram Ashre Pandey of Maharashtra has supplied the labour for working on the said road. The payment is to be made to that person also. It has been stated that possibility cannot be ruled out that machinery and other items which were handed over to applicant were sold to someone-else. 6. I have also gone through the copy of Special Power of Attorney dated 28.02.2008 in the police file executed by Padam Chand Rohal in favour of Prem Chand Thakur whereby the applicant has been authorized to lookafter, supervise, maintain and complete the works assigned to the complainant by the HPPWD, Division Arki, for construction of jeepable road from ‘Kasol to Padhiar’, Tehsil Arki, KM 0/0 to 5/430. In the Special Power of Attorney, there is no mention that any machinery or other articles have been handed over by the complainant to the applicant. 7. I have also gone through the complaint from the police file under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the complaint also, the details of the machinery, articles handed over by the complainant to the applicant have not been given. The complainant, however, in his supplementary statement dated 08.08.2011 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he handed over some articles to the applicant. Harender Pal Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has named Ram Ashre Pandey and applicant for removing the machinery. 8. The handing over of machinery and other articles to applicant has been mentioned in the status report, but till now no …4… receipt or other document has been shown by the Investigating Agency that items mentioned in the status report, in fact, were handed over to applicant. No recovery of items allegedly sold to someone has been made till now. 9. The applicant in the application has stated that earlier the complainant has approached police of Kandaghat and Solan for lodging report, but police did not find that applicant has committed any offence. This has not been specifically contradicted in the status report. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the event of arrest of applicant in FIR No. 132 of 2011, registered on 18.07.2011 at Police Station, Barmana, under Section 406 IPC, he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicant shall continue to join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 10. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘dasti’. August 18, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.