IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 730 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.09.2011 ____________________________________________________________ Mani Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General 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. 8 of 2011 dated 19.3.2011 registered at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Nahan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is a Government contractor. The petitioner has nothing to do with the case and the petitioner is innocent and is ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? y 2 now being threatened by the investigating agency to be arrayed as an accused in the case. The case is registered against one Bir Singh, who allegedly disclosed to the police that the petitioner had given registration certificate to him. The petitioner is an illiterate villager and has nothing to do with the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. In view of the registration of the case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report filed in the Court. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint of Karam Singh against Bir Singh. It has come during investigation that Bir Singh and Mani Ram got renewal of their registration as contractor by taking the help of forged documents. Bir Singh disclosed that he obtained the documents on payment of `3,000/- to petitioner whereas the petitioner is not coming out with truth. Bir Singh has taken contract of `.40.00 lacs on the basis of forged documents. Bir Singh has been released on bail on 15.9.2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan. The petitioner during investigation has stated that the upgradation order alleged to have been issued from Rohru was procured by him with the help of one Nasir Khan but no such Nasir Khan is available on the address 3 given by the petitioner. Prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. In the status report, it has been stated that the petitioner has disclosed that he has not supplied any document to Bir Singh. It has been stated that petitioner is a clever person. It appears from the status report that the case of the prosecution is based upon documents. The petitioner has joined the investigation. It is for the investigating agency to connect the various links which the investigating agency has found during investigation. In view of the nature of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary more particularly when accused Bir Singh has already been released on bail. The investigating agency, however, shall have full right to interrogate the petitioner even during bail and in case he will not co-operate then the investigating agency shall be further at liberty to file appropriate application in the Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. In view of above, the application is allowed and the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 8 of 2011 dated 19.3.2011 registered at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Nahan under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court 4 with the condition that the petitioner shall 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. The investigating agency shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner and in absence of cooperation of petitioner the investigating agency shall be further entitled to move appropriate application in the Court. 6. 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. September 23, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.