IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.550 of 2008 Decided on: June 06, 2008. Ravinder Kumar Sharma …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.1/2006 dated 16.3.2006 registered at Police Station, S.V. & A.C.B. Una under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions received from Inspector Rai Singh, Police Station, S.V. & A.C.B., Una, has stated that nine persons Daya Ram Singh BDO, G.C.Anand BDO, O.C.Pathak Superintendent, Ramesh Chand Superintendent, Ravinder Kumar (petitioner), Bishan Dev Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Atma Ram Secretary, Gram Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… Panchayat, Bhagwan Dass Contractor and Vinod Puri Contractor had conspired together for commission of the offence for which F.I.R. No.1 of 2006 was registered at Police Station, S.V. & A.C.B. Una. The accused prepared forged documents and misappropriated the amount of beneficiaries of Sulabh Shauchalaya and thus caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. They misused their powers. The petitioner was Junior Engineer at the relevant time. The misappropriated amount is lacs of rupees. It has further been submitted that Daya Ram Singh BDO, G.C.Anand BDO and Atma Ram Secretary Gram Panchayat have died, O.C.Pathak Superintendent and Ramesh Chand Superintendent have retired. O.C.Pathak retired Superintendent, Ramesh Chand retired Superintendent, Bishan Dev Secretary Gram Panchayat and Bhagwan Dass Contractor have already been granted bail in the case. In fact, only two persons, namely, Ravinder Kumar (petitioner) and Vinod Puri Contractor have not yet been granted bail in the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations against the petitioner as per status report pertain to the years 1993 to 1997. The F.I.R. was registered on 16.3.2006 and the investigation in the case is going at slow pace. The petitioner in terms of order dated 28.5.2008 passed by this Court has already joined investigation and he will further join the investigation as directed by this Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish requisite bail bonds. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the present case. The learned Additional Advocate General has …3… opposed the bail application on the grounds that lacs of rupees have been misappropriated, embezzled by the petitioner and other accused by misusing their position as public servants. All accused conspired together and caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to themselves. In public interest they are not entitled to bail. It has been submitted that sample signatures and handwritings of the petitioner are to be taken in the case. 4. The F.I.R. was registered on 16.3.2006 and it has not been explained why the petitioner was not arrested in the case till he filed the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in this Court. As per prosecution, there were total nine accused; out of them three have died, except two, others have been released on bail. The petitioner has joined the investigation and it is not the stand of the prosecution that petitioner has hampered the investigation or tampered with the prosecution evidence. It is also not the stand of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is released on pre arrest bail, then he will not be available for interrogation. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application is allowed and the petitioner, in the event of arrest, is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No.1/2006 dated 16.3.2006 registered at Police Station, S.V. & A.C.B. Una under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the condition that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall …4… not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co- operate with the Investigating Officer for obtaining his sample handwritings and signatures in accordance with law, if required by the Investigating Officer. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. June 06, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)