IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 895 of 2011. Date of decision: 9.11.2011. Bal Krishan Kapil ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, 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. 6/11 dated 1.11.2011, under sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, ACV/ Vigilance, Hamirpur. 2. It has been stated in the application that on 1.11.2011 the petitioner received a telephonic call from Pawan Kumar Verma, contractor requesting the petitioner to fix appointment as he wanted to meet the petitioner. He requested the petitioner that he would get some indents of material for cement to be signed from the petitioner. The petitioner asked him to come at any time. However, the complainant- contractor reached the office of the petitioner afternoon Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and indents for material were signed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner left his office and went to check some works at local places. The petitioner while leaving the office left his mobile phone and also the vehicle. The petitioner inspected the sites and was free at about 5.00 p.m., thereafter he went to his home. 3. On 1.11.2011 in the evening, the petitioner contacted his store-keeper to collect his mobile phone which was lying on the table. The store keeper informed that petitioner’s office has been raided behind his back by the vigilance department, Hamirpur and after the said raid the room of the petitioner was locked. The petitioner came to know that a case under sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered by the Vigilance Department against the petitioner on 1.11.2011 at Police Station, Hamirpur. The petitioner apprehended his arrest and therefore, he filed the bail application. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by Pawan Kumar Verma, who had taken small contracts from the department and his works were not found satisfactory by the department. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. He is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The petitioner has prayed for bail, under section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the complaint of Pawan Kumar Verma under section 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. A raiding party consisting of Inspector Amar Singh etc. including shadow witnesses Dev Kumar and Tehsildar Anupam Kumar was constituted. The …3… raiding party entered the office of Sub Divisional Officer through the premises of Sub Divisional Officer, PWD Sub Division, but the petitioner was not found there. The staff, complainant and shadow witnesses informed that the petitioner had left the office. The office of Sub Divisional Officer was inspected and it was found that S.D.O. left his mobile phone in the office. The treated currency notes were not recovered, it was found that petitioner had kept the bribe money of Rs.5000/- in the drawer of the official table, but immediately thereafter the bribe money was taken out and he left the office. The mobile phone of the petitioner was also taken into possession. The petitioner proceeded on leave for 2.11.2011 and 3.11.2011. The video recording was done. The petitioner has joined the investigation, but he has not cooperated in recovery of tainted money. The prayer has been made for dismissing the bail application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The alleged occurrence took place on 1.11.2011. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the complainant, who has been given small contracts and whose work was not found satisfactory by the petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner had gone out at the relevant time to check various works and by that time office time was over and he proceeded to his home instead of returning to the office after 5.00 p.m. Pawan Kumar Verma in his statement, under section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he, Dev Raj went to the office of SDO. (PWD) B.K. Kapil was present in the office. He requested S.D.O. to award …4… the tender to him. JE Des Raj also came in the office of SDO for some time. JE and Dev Raj together went outside, SDO demanded the bribe money from him, he handed over Rs.1000/- five currency notes to SDO who asked him to put the currency notes in the drawer of the table. The complainant thus put those currency notes in the drawer of the table. The shadow witness Dev Raj was observing from the door, who came inside and then left outside. In the meanwhile, petitioner all of a sudden went out alongwith bribe money and raiding party entered the room. The treated currency notes were not found in the drawer of the table. 6. Dev Kumar in his statement, under section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that on 1.11.2011 he joined the investigation. He has stated that SDO took the bribe money from the complainant, put the same in the drawer of the table, then he signaled the raiding party and the raiding party entered in the office. Thus Dev Kumar had seen bribe money putting into the drawer of the official table of the petitioner. The currency notes were not found in the drawer of the table of the petitioner when raiding party entered the office of the petitioner and the drawer was searched. The question where the bribe money had gone, which was put in the drawer of the official table of the petitioner by complainant as per directions of the petitioner. 7. The investigation is at initial stage. There are serious allegations against the petitioner of taking bribe from the complainant. The petitioner has not denied his presence in the office on 1.11.2011. The mobile phone of the petitioner was left in the office in a huff when …5… petitioner left the office on seeing the raiding party alongwith bribe money. The petitioner has stated that he had gone at that time to inspect various sites, but nobody in the office at the relevant time supported the version of petitioner that petitioner had gone out of office to inspect the sites. In these circumstances, it is not a case where petitioner is entitled to indulgence of bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at this stage. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. November 9, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.