IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.145 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.3.2008. Chain Singh ………. 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 : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. Heard and perused the record. 2. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.89 of 2008 dated 22.2.2008 registered at Police Station, Sadar Una under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The notice was issued to respondent on 26.2.2008 and accordingly learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted the status report in the Court today. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the landed properties of two judgment debtors namely Naresh Kumar and Prem Kumar Bhardwaj were ordered to be sold by way of public auction. The petitioner conducted the auction sale on 5.7.2006 and the highest bid Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was offered by one Bodh Raj whose bid was finalized. The auction purchaser deposited 10% bid amount i.e. Rs.30,000/- with the petitioner on the spot and the remaining bid amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was deposited by him in cash on 20.7.2006. The petitioner had deposited the entire amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- received by him from the auction purchaser in the Court on 28.7.2006 which thereafter through challan was deposited in the Treasury. 4. Naresh Kumar and Prem Kumar Judgment debtors filed objections against the auction sale, learned District Judge decided those objections vide order dated 19.11.2007 and made certain observations against the petitioner and the auction sale was set aside. The learned District Judge, Una concluded that allegations of the objectors deserve to be investigated by investigating agency and on the basis of order dated 19.11.2007 of learned District Judge, Una an FIR No.89 of 2008 was registered at Police Station, Una. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The Civil Courts at Una were closed during summer vacation from 1.7.2006 to 30.7.2006. The petitioner had sent his staff with the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the office of learned District Judge for deposit in the Treasury under signatures of learned District Judge on challan but on account of non-availability of learned District Judge due to summer vacation, the amount could not be deposited before 28.7.2006. The learned counsel for petitioner has prayed for release of petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. The application has been opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence, his conduct has been adversely commented by learned District Judge in his order dated 19.11.2007 and there upon the case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any leniency. It is not in public interest to release the petitioner 3 on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the status report filed in the Court it has been submitted that petitioner is yet to be interrogated how many persons were present at the time of auction and how many bidders signed the auction proceedings and about their identity. It has been submitted that for this purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is not the case of the investigating agency that auction proceedings were not drawn by the petitioner. Therefore, all the information which is sought to be collected from petitioner through custodial interrogation, in normal course, is required to be drawn up in auction proceedings and those proceedings must have been sent by the petitioner to the Court who ordered the auction. The prayer of bail has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner is a senior officer and he may influence the witnesses. This is vague allegation but in case, the petitioner would dare to influence the prosecution witnesses the law will take its own course. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.89 of 2008, registered at Police Station Sadar on 22.2.2008 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and not terrorise the prosecution witnesses. He shall join the investigation as and when called. 7. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge March 5, 2008(sks) 4