IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) 1032 of 2009. Date of Decision: 7.12.2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shiv Singh Sen ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ………..Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner ………Mr Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent ………Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2008 registered on 27.8.2008 at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 IPC read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted as Secretary Nagar Panchayat Manali from 16.5.2001 to 17.9.2004 and from 31.5.2006 to 17.3.2007. The petitioner at present is posted as Secretary Nagar Panchayat Rewalsar, District Mandi. The Secretary Nagar Panchayat Manali was required to sign cheques jointly with President or Vice President of the Nagar Panchayat. The Secretary could not sign any cheque independently. 4. The bill is first entertained by the Secretary and the same is marked to concerned Store Keeper and Accountant for verification and ------------------------------------------------------ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. -2- preparation of cheque. The concerned Store Keeper verifies the bill after checking the items mentioned in the bill and in his store book. The necessary entries are made on the bill as well as in the stock register. The Accountant thereafter prepares the cheque and entry to this effect is made in the cash book. Then the cash book alongwith the bill is presented before the Secretary who verifies the entries and put his signatures in the cash book and the cheque in turn is signed by the President/ Vice President and Secretary. The cheque is disbursed by concerned Clerk after taking proper receipt. The record remains with the concerned Store Keeper or concerned Clerk. In the present case the above procedure was followed. The entire record remained in the custody of concerned persons. The prosecution case is that the bills are missing but there are many contemporaneous entries, including audit report, from where the amount and items mentioned in the bills can be verified. The petitioner has committed no offence. However, petitioner apprehends his arrest in view of registration of the case. This Court has already allowed Cr.MP(M) 1008 of 2009 and Cr. MP(M) 1009 of 2009 on 24.11.2009. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. He has submitted that as per Investigating Agency Shiv Singh Sen Secretary had purchased Rs 8.27 lacs medicines in the year 2003-2004 from Suresh Kumar Contractor. The original bill No. 604 amounting to Rs 3,88,570/- is not on record. The payment of Rs 4,38,830/- was made to contractor Suresh Kumar by Secretary and other employees without bill. The Secretary has given benefit -3- to his close, such as Matidhar Sharma for an amount of Rs. 1,66,751/-. Shiv Singh Sen has also purchased under weight Street Light Poles from Ashoka Steel Bilaspur by giving benefit to the firm of Rs 18672/-. He has also given benefit of Rs. 10180/- to Nika Ram contractor for carrying garbage. Shiv Singh Sen has thus caused loss of Rs 4,67,652/- to the State. Shiv Singh Sen through cheque has paid Rs 8,27,400/- to Suresh Kumar on account of bill No. 604 dated 10.3.2004 and bill No.610 dated 19.3.2004 but both bills are not on record. As per Investigating Agency, payment was made to Suresh Kumar without original bills. The entries of medicines and other material in the stock register are suspicious. The entries of original bill Nos. 604 and 610 are not on record. The petitioner has joined the Investigation but he has not given satisfactory explanation as to why he made the payment to Contractor without original bills. He has blamed the concerned staff regarding the original bills. 6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is presently posted as Secretary Nagar Panchayat Rewalsar. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that Shiv Singh Sen has issued the cheque in the absence of original bills No. 604 and 610 which are not on record. Investigating Agency is insisting on original bills No. 604 and 610. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that petitioner is not posted as Secretary Nagar Panchayat Manali these days and the concerned record even remotely is not in his custody or power. Investigating Agency has not come forward for recovery of any other material, document from the petitioner except bills No. 604 and 610 which according to Investigating Agency admittedly are not on record. There is no denial of the fact that petitioner is now not posted as Secretary at -4- Manali. The case appears to be document based .The two other accused have been granted bail in Cr.MP(M) 1008 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) 1009 of 2009 under Section 438 Cr.PC on 24.11.2009. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail for releasing him on bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. Therefore in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No. 8 of 2008 registered on 27.8.2008 at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Kullu under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 IPC read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of. ‘Dasti copy’ (Kuldip Singh) Judge. October 9,2009. (KC)