IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 787 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.10.2011 Amit Kumar …. 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. Rakesh Manta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 304 of 2011 dated 28.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, under Sections 379, 419 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated that in the application that the case has been registered at the instance of official of Lynx Security Services Pvt. Ltd. which is associated with Bharti Infra Tel having its branch office at Mehli, Shimla. It has been alleged that someone took telecom material from the tower site situated at Melthi at the instance of the petitioner on 28.7.2011. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 alleged offence directly or indirectly. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. 3. There is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which on its face appears to be concocted and after thought. The petitioner has been made scapegoat at the instance of certain person. It has been stated that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint dated 11.8.2011 of Kartar Chauhan wherein it has been stated that he had visited the site on 10.8.2011 and found theft of Battery Bank 600 VH 48V valuing ` 1,50,000/-. It has been stated that during investigation, statement of Chowkidar was recorded in which he has stated that he on 28.7.2011 received phone from one Amit Kumar from the office of Airtel Bharti Infra Tel Ltd. Shoghi directing him to handover old batteries to Rahul and Gaurav. It has also been found that the mobile number used by Amit Kumar was of the petitioner himself. The petitioner has joined the investigation. It has been stated that the batteries are still to be recovered and details of co-accused are also to be ascertained. The prayer has been made for custodial interrogation. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the record. The precise case projected by the investigating agency is that the petitioner on 28.7.2011 on mobile phone told Mahavir Singh Shandil, Security Guard of Lynx to hand over old batteries to Rahul and Gaurav and, therefore, Mahavir Singh Shandil handed over old batteries to Rahul and 3 Gaurav. Lateron it was found that no such persons were authorized to take batteries. The market value of batteries is about ` 1,50,000/-. The police file reveals that the statement of Mahavir Singh Shandil was recorded on 3.9.2011 but before that Kartar Chauhan submitted written application dated 11.8.2011 to SHO, Rohru stating therein that he had inspected the site on 10.8.2011 and found that Battery Bank 600 VH 48V had been stolen valuing ` 1,50,000/-. In the application dated 11.8.2011 there is no reference of telephonic talk between Mahavir Singh Shandil and petitioner nor the names of Rahul and Gaurav have been stated in the application. The case of the petitioner is of plain denial. 6. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not disclosing whereabouts of Rahul and Gaurav nor he is disclosing anything about the batteries. The petitioner has joined the investigation. The investigating agency has already got sufficient time to interrogate the petitioner. It is for the investigating agency to trace out the whereabouts of Rahul and Gaurav and batteries more particularly when petitioner has taken the stand of plain denial. The delay in lodging the FIR and non- mentioning of the names of Rahul and Gaurav in the application dated 11.8.2011 has important bearing. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. In these circumstances, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 304 of 2011 dated 28.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Rohru, under Sections 379, 419 and 120-B IPC., the petitioner 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 4 Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any in any manner. 8. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. October 10, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.