Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. M.P.(M) No.803 of 2011. Date of Decision: September 30, 2011. Pratap Chand. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Petitioner with Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner has preferred, instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail, after having been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on 26.9.2011. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.335/2011, registered on 14.9.2011 in 2 Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that in Civil Suit No.85/1997, Shri M.L. Upadhaya, Advocate was appointed as a Receiver by the learned District Judge, Kullu. It is alleged that the petitioner was not allowing to function him as a Receiver, thus Receiver filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu for providing police assistance, which was allowed. (ii) The Receiver went to the spot alongwith police and the revenue officials. In the meantime, petitioner had also filed Civil Revision No.15 of 2011, in this High Court, wherein an application (CMP No.118 of 2011) was moved for seeking the stay of the further proceedings, but this Court only ordered to requisition the record of the learned trial Court and the case was fixed for 25.3.2011, but no stay was 3 issued, for the reasons that the entire record stood requisitioned. (iii) When the Receiver reached the spot, petitioner is alleged to have made a wrong statement that the stay order from the High Court has been issued against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, he did not produce the certified copy thereof, but had sworn a false affidavit that he had obtained the stay order on 15.2.2011 from the High Court in Civil Revision petition. After verification, it was found that no such stay order was passed, as such, Shri M.L. Upadhaya, Advocate filed a complaint, which culminated into the present FIR. 4. Learned trial Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that earlier also an FIR No.11 of 2010 under Section 420 IPC stands registered against the petitioner. He is a dismissed employee of the Bank and in this case the specimen handwritings are required and in case he 4 is released on bail, he would terrorize the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also produced photocopy of the affidavit, which was alleged to have been handed over to the Receiver. Annexure P-2 is the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by this Court whereby no stay was granted to the petitioner by this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, the petitioner is not an illiterate person. He knows fully well the repercussions of swearing false affidavit and its consequences. In case, he is granted pre-arrest bail, it will have a bad impact on the society. Thus he has no case for indulgence of this Court. Hence the petition is dismissed. 7. The respondent is at liberty to take the petitioner into custody. However, the petitioner is also at liberty to move for regular bail if arrested. The Court concerned shall decide the same on its merits, without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 8. Application stands disposed of. September 30, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. 5