IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 962 of 2011. Date of decision: 29.11.2011. _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.181/2011 dated 19.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, under Sections 379, 411 IPC. 2. It has been stated FIR has been registered on the allegation that on a secret information police raided the house of Smt. Salochana Devi, who was in the process of constructing her house. It has been alleged that some cement bags which were not open for sale in the market, but such cement is supplied to the I&PH Department and MANREGA work executed by the Panchayat were recovered from the house of Smt. Salochana Devi. The petitioner has Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… nothing to do with the execution of government work and the cement supplied to government works. 3. The police arrested Smt. Salochana Devi, but she has been released on bail. The allegations against the petitioner are that he is executing the construction work of Smt. Salochana Devi. The construction material is being arranged and supplied by the owner. 4. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the allegation that tractor in reference through which the cement was transported belongs to him, however, petitioner has no role for purchasing the cement or arranging the same. It has been alleged that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner, however, is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner filed bail application which was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 19.11.2011. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that a secret information was received on 19.10.2011 that Smt. Salochana Devi has brought government cement from somewhere and has stored in her house for the construction of second storey of her house. It has been alleged that a raiding party was constituted in which Virender Singh and Shadi Lal were associated and house of Smt. Salochana Devi was searched, 14 bags of J.P. cement and 18 empty bags of J.P. cement were recovered from the verandah and store of ground floor of Smt. Salochana Devi. On the bags, it was …3… written “Cement not for sale H.P. Government supply only through H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation”. 6. The cement bags and empty cement bags were taken into possession. It has been stated that petitioner had taken contract for construction of second storey of the house of Smt. Salochana Devi for a consideration of `2,50,000/-. The petitioner during investigation has disclosed that 20/25 days ago he had purchased cement from truck driver at Kaloha and loaded in his tractor No. HP-36-9161 which was driven by driver Man Chand. The petitioner, however, is not disclosing the registration number of the vehicle, driver and conductor from where he allegedly purchased the cement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. It is to be ascertained from where petitioner has procured the government cement. It has been prayed that the bail application may be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that Smt. Salochana Devi co-accused has been released on bail. I have gone through the rukka addressed to SHO, Police Station, Jawalamukhi, wherein it has been stated that 14 bags of J.P.cement and 18 empty bags of J.P.cement were recovered from the verandah and store located in the ground floor of Smt. Salochana Devi. Man Chand in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that he has unloaded the cement in the house of Smt. Salochana Devi which was sent by Anil Kumar contractor. The police has recovered that …4… very cement. Kushnandan Shah in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he is a mason and he had been working as mason in the house of Smt. Salochana Devi since 10-11th October, 2011. The contractor is Anil Kumar. On 19.10.2011, police raided the house of Smt. Salochana Devi and recovered 14 bags of cement and 18 empty bags of cement. This cement was brought by Man Chand tractor driver of Anil Kumar in tractor No. HP-36A-9161. This cement was stored by Smt. Salochana Devi in her room. Man Chand at that time told that the cement had been sent by Anil after purchasing. 8. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the cement recovered from the house of Smt. Salochana Devi was meant for government supplies. The petitioner is not disclosing the truck owner, driver, conductor of the truck from where he has purchased the cement. It is nobody’s case, at this stage, that the cement recovered from the house of Smt. Salochana Devi does not belong to government supply. Smt. Salochana Devi has been released on bail, but it has come on record, at this stage, that the cement in question was procured by petitioner, who is constructing the second storey of the house of Smt. Salochana Devi on contract. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner is raising construction of the house of Smt. Salochana Devi with material, whereas, petitioner has denied that he is raising construction of Smt. Salochana Devi’s house with material. This requires investigation. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. …5… 9. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 29, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (krt) Judge.