IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. 1.Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 856 of 2011 2.Cr.MP(M) No. 857 of 2011. 3.Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.10.2011. _______________________________________________________ 1..Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011 Kuldeep Chand …..Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011 Parkash Chand ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 3. Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011 Raj Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ( in all the petitions) For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. (in all the petitions) Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011, all having arisen out of FIR No.7 of 2011 dated 18.12.2010 under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 4 and 5 of H.P. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, S.V. and ACB, Una. The Status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 856 of 2011. 2. It has been stated in the applications that on the basis of complaint of one Dharam Singh a false case has been registered against the petitioners. The petitioners in Cr.MP(M) No.856 and Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011 were Junior Engineers and petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011 was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Dhiyungli. It has also been alleged that two retaining walls were constructed during the period when Parkash Chand was Pardhan and petitioners in Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011 were the Junior Engineers. It has been stated by petitioners that a Committee of Engineers was allegedly appointed, who visited the spot and made some assessment. The petitioners apprehend their arrest on account of registration of the case. It has been submitted that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. It has been submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Una dismissed the bail applications of petitioners on 17.10.2011 wrongly and illegally. They have prayed for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have used sub standard material for construction of retaining walls. The cement and sand was to be used in the ratio of 1:6, but reports indicate that ratio of cement and sand used was 1:10.8, 1:11.5, 1:9.5. It has been stated that petitioners have joined the investigation. The …3… handwriting and signatures of the petitioners are to be taken. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The Investigating Agency has not stated that after interim bail by this Court, the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. The handwriting and signatures of the petitioners can be taken while petitioners are on bail. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Accordingly, bail applications being Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011 are allowed, all the petitioners in the event of arrest are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.7 of 2011 dated 18.12.2010 under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 4 and 5 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, S.V. and ACB, Una on furnishing their personal bonds in the sum of ` 50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, with the condition that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Copy ‘Dasti’. October 28, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge. …4… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.857 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.10.2011. Parkash Chand ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma,Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) For order, see order rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011, titled as Kuldeep Chand vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. October 28, 2011 (sks) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …5… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.858 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.10.2011. Raj Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?3 For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma,Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) For order, see order rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.856 of 2011, titled as Kuldeep Chand vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. October 28, 2011 (sks) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …6…