IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No.744 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 747 of 2009. Date of decision: September 2, 2009. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 744 of 2009. Raj Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 747 of 2009. Shyam Lal …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocte. For the respondent (s) : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This order shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No. 744 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 747 of 2009, which have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail. Both the petitions have arisen from FIR No. 393 dated 17.9.2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station, Sadar Mandi, District Mandi. Raj Kumar is the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 744 of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2009 and Shyam Lal is the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 747 of 2009. The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 744 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.MP(M) No. 744 of 2009, it has been alleged that petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The main accused Ludar Chand has already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. The petitioner earlier filed bail application, which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 27.8.2009. 3. In Cr.MP(M) No. 747 of 2009, the petitioner has taken more or less the same grounds as have been taken by the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 744 of 2009. It has, however, been submitted by the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 747 of 2009 that he was not dealing with the preparation of bills nor he was dealing with the accounts. The petitioner earlier filed bail application, which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 27.8.2009. 4. The bail applications have been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that Shyam Lal accused had prepared fake bills, whereas Raj Kumar accused has drawn Rs.4500/- on the basis of APR (Acquaintance pay rolls). The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that neither Shyam Lal has prepared bills of any accused nor Raj Kumar has submitted any bill for withdrawal of any amount. There is no allegation at this stage that accused Shyam Lal has actually withdrawn any amount. According to the investigating agency, there are as many as 25 accused. It has …3… not been denied that the main accused ASI Ludar Chand has been released on bail on 23.6.2008. 5. In the status report, the allegations are that Shyam Lal accused has helped Ludar Chand accused, who has already been released on bail. There is no allegation in the status report that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. On the contrary, it has been stated in the status report that handwriting of the accused were taken and sent for expert opinion. There is no assertion in the status report with respect to specific recovery of certain documents or other articles except for recovery of travelling allowance. The FIR was lodged long time back on 17.9.2006. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail in their favour under Section 438 Cr.P.C. . Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 393 dated 17.9.2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. Copy dasti. September 2, 2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.