IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1066 of 2011 2. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1067 of 2011 3. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1068 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.12.2011. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1066 of 2011. Satish Kumar son of Sh. Ved Parkash, R/O Village & Post Office, Ispur, Tehsil & District Una, H.P. …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1067 of 2011. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Village & Post Office, Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 1068 of 2011. Shiv Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o Village & Post Office, Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. …..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(s) : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (oral). This judgement shall dispose of Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1066 of 2011, Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1067 of 2011 and Cr.M.P. (M) No.1068 of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2011, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which have arisen out of FIR No. 199/2011 dated 12.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, under Sections 420, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Cr.MP(M) No. 1066 of 2011 has been filed by Satish Kumar, Cr.MP(M) No. 1067 of 2011 by Ram Kumar and Cr.MP(M) No. 1068 of 2011 by Shiv Kumar. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.1066 of 2011. Cr.MP(M) No. 1066 of 2011 2. It has been stated that the case has been registered against the petitioner on a false complaint lodged by Tarlok Chand. It has been stated that complaint has been lodged on extraneous consideration and with ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The complainant had received sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- of the land from Shiv Kumar and thereafter he executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Shiv Kumar on 26.12.2009. Tarlok Chand was under debt, he paid Rs.72,000/- to Kangra Primary Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Amb and balance amount of Rs.28,000/- was deposited by Tarlok Chand in his account. The land was redeemed on 8.2.2010. The sale deed was executed on 16.2.2010 in favour of Ram Kumar. The General Power of Attorney fully authorized to execute the sale deed which was otherwise within the knowledge of Tarlok Chand. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1067 and 1068 of 2011 3. These petitions have been filed for releasing the petitioners on bail in above FIR. The petitioners in these petitions have prayed bail more or less on similar grounds as have been taken by petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1066 of 2011. 4. The status report has been filed in CrMP(M) No.1066 of 2011 and bail has been opposed to petitioners. It has been stated that in pursuance of order dated 12.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(1), Amb under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint filed by Tarlok Chand a case has been registered at Police Station, Amb. It has been stated that according to complainant in the year 2006 he had mortgaged his land for Rs.50,000/- to Kangra Primary Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Amb. He could not clear the loan on account of his poverty. The bank had issued notice for auctioning of the land of the complainant. He took the help of petitioner Satish Kumar who was posted as patwari in Patwar Circle, Tayai. Satish Kumar in connivance with his relative Shiv Kumar instead of mortgaging the land got prepared General Power of Attorney in favour of Shiv Kumar and thereafter sold the land in favour of Ram Kumar on 16.2.2010. Ram Kumar and Shiv Kumar are brothers. The land was later on sold to Ram Chander, R/o Behad Jaswan. The complainant came to know these facts only when the land was sold to Ram Chander. 5. It has been stated that complainant after coming to know the sale in favour of Ram Chander approached Satish Kumar, who used caste words against complainant and down graded him in presence of several persons. It has been alleged that fraud has been committed with the complainant. On this, the case has been registered. 6. It has been stated that investigation is still in progress but till now Ram Chander to whom the land has ultimately been sold has not been made an accused. It has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. It has not been stated in the status report that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation or they have misused the interim bail. No request has been made in the status report for custodial interrogation of the petitioners, nor a case has been made out for custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The petitioners thus have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C 7. In view of above, all the petitions being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1066, 1067, 1068 of 2011 are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 199/2011 dated 12.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, under Sections 420, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Addl. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court during the course of the day today with the conditions that petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 26,2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.