IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 618 of 2011. Date of decision: 23.8.2011. Dinesh Bajaj ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 123 of 2011 dated 15.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been arrested by Indora police on 23.6.2011 in connection with FIR No. 123 of 2011 registered on 15.4.2011 at Police Station, Indora, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The petitioner is in judicial custody. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… allegation against the petitioner is that he was working in complainant’s company as supervisor and he prepared forged bills of refined oil and sold the same somewhere. The persons in whose names the bills were prepared informed that they did not receive any supply of oil. It has been alleged that petitioner has sold the stock of Damtal Depot to the tune of Rs. 10,44,710/- to somebody and did not deposit the amount in the accounts of the company. There is further deficiency in the stock of depot to the extent of Rs.1,33,000/-. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith co-accused Jai Singh in furtherance of criminal conspiracy misused the property of Ruchi Soya Industries to the extent of Rs.11,79,000/-. 3. The petitioner filed bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, which has been dismissed on 6.8.2011. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The case against the petitioner is vague. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The trial of the case will take some time. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to furnish surety of local persons. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that it has come in investigation that material was not supplied to the companies in whose names the bills were prepared. As per FIR, the petitioner has sold material of Rs.11,79,000/-. It has come in investigation that on 24.7.2011 an amount of Rs. 10,53,701/- has …3… been recovered from the petitioner and the amount has been deposited in the account of Ruchi Soya Industries. It has been stated in the status report that defrauded amount now remains Rs.1,25,290/-. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that challan has been submitted in the court on 18.8.2011. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced on either side. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody since 23.6.2011. Now the challan has been submitted in the court, therefore, no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The trial will take some time. The bail application has been opposed. 6. It has come in the status report that defrauded amount now remains Rs.1,25,290/-. The petitioner is in custody since long. The challan has been submitted in the court, therefore, now no more further investigation is required in the case. The trial of the case will take some time. 7. In view of above, the application is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 123 of 2011 dated 15.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local sureties each of the like amount residing within the jurisdiction of trial court to the satisfaction of trial court. The petitioner shall not terrorise the prosecution witnesses. In case the petitioner misuses the liberty of …4… bail then the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate petition for cancellation of bail. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case Copy dasti. August 23, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.