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.196 of 2010 with Cr.M.P.(M) No.203 of 2010. Dated of Decision: March 25, 2010. 1. Cr.M..P.(M) No.196 of 2010. Subhash Ahluwalia . …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P . ……. Respondent. 2. Cr.M..P.(M) No.203 of 2010. Meera Walia. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Add. Advocate General with Mr.J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. Narvir Singh Rathour Dy.S.P. Solan is also present. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The above titled bail applications for pre-arrest bail are arising from FIR No.45/10, registered on 12.3.2010 in the Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 214, 465, 467, 468, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, hence taken up together for its decision. Heard and gone through the investigation record produced. 2 The background facts, which emerges from the submissions made by both the parties are that petitioner Subhash Ahluwalia is a Senior IAS and his wife Meera Walia is a Principal in SERT, Solan. Shri Subhash Ahluwalia was a Principal Pvt. Secretary with the former Chief Minister. Earlier an FIR No.67/2008 was registered on 15.6.2008 under Sections 384, 420,120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Parwanoo against Shri B.S. Thind, A.D.G.P., on the inquiry report dated 25th April, 2008 of Shri Chander Shekhar, the then Superintendent of Police of State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (S.I.U.) Shimla, alleging that the complainant Ashok Mittal had some dispute with his brother over the possession of a shop at Parwanoo. To vacate it some money as demanded was to be given to the said ADGP, to help him to get the possession of the said shop. It was during that time, Ashok Mittal complainant came in close contact with the ADGP, who allegedly wooed him to get more people having some work at Govt. level and would get it settled for money. The complainant came across one Mahesh Gupta, whose land was to be acquired by the Housing Board who wanted to avoid the acquisition proceedings, for which he was ready to pay any amount at any level of the government. Mahesh Gupta accompanied said Shri Ashok Mittal and is alleged to have paid an amount of Rs.8 lacs to Subhash Ahluwalia and the then the Chief Minister. Shri Thind is alleged to be common link in settling the bargain. Before submission of the inquiry report by Shri Chander Shekhar, the then S.P. SV & ACB he had contacted Mahesh Gupta to substantiate the allegations of Shri Ashok Mittal, but as per report of said S.P. dated 25.4.2008 obtained under the R.T.I. Act, filed by 3 the learned counsel for the petitioners said Mahesh Gupta when contacted, refused to come forward and denied having made any payment to anyone as alleged. The investigation of that case is stated to be almost complete, and it is stated by learned Additional Advocate General, it is going to be filed very shortly in the court. Against the above background, Smt. Meera Walia is alleged to have contacted Ashok Mittal on 28th February, 2010 on his cell-phone, thereafter again contacted him on 7.3.2010 and also on 9.3.2010, precisely for filing the affidavit by Ashok Mittal and Mahesh Gupta to make the statement in favour of her husband in the earlier FIR No.67/2008. It is alleged that it was against the aforesaid background that one Lalit Jindal through Ruchit Mahajan deputed Ram Niwas Gupta a businessman on 11.3.2010 to pay the amount of Rs.8 lacs to Ashok Mittal and Mahesh Gupta, as demanded by them to execute the affidavits to make the statements in their favour. Earlier the meeting was arranged in hotel Taj Chandigarh, thereafter shifted the venue to hotel Solitaire, Mani Majra near Chandigarh at the instance of the complainant. The above information was allegedly passed by Ashok Mittal to Shri Ramesh Pathania, Dy.S.P. Parwanoo and he laid a trap and caught hold Ram Niwas Gupta red- handed, who had passed the money to Ashok Mittal alongwith two affidavits alleged to have been executed by Ashok Mittal and Mahesh Gupta. Out of the two affidavits, the affidavit of Ashok Mittal was already got attested from the Noatary Public Prem Kishan Dass, who was also present at that time. After interrogation, the aforesaid persons were let off with the direction to report in the Police Station, Parwanoo next day. They came next day i.e. on 12.3.2010 and met Shri Ramesh 4 Pathania, Dy.S.P. Pawarnoo. Thereafter, FIR No.45/10 was lodged at about 2.20 p.m. in Police Station Sadar, Solan, under the aforesaid sections. Ram Niwas Gupta was arrested, but later enlarged on bail by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan on 16.3.2010, whereas the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in the instant case, hence these applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Shri J.S. Rana learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as they are highly placed persons in the society and the police wants to find out the source of money and also to get the voice sample of the conversation, which was recorded by the complainant Ashok Mittal on 7th and 9th March, 2010. Shri M.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Shri N.S. Chandel, learned Advocate, for the petitioners forcefully argued that there was no occasion for the petitioners to contact Ashok Mittal to state in their favour by swearing an affidavit for the reasons that Mahesh Gupta in the inquiry conducted by Shri Chander Shekhar, S.P. (SV & ACB) did not say anything against them, nor about passing of the money to petitioner Subhash Ahluwalia or anybody else, as alleged. It is further submitted that the complainant Ashok Mittal had himself been trying to contact petitioner Meera Walia in her absence, as informed by her servant, for the reasons best known to him and it was with reference to that petitioner Meera Walia might have contacted Ashok Mittal who fabricated the evidence. He also ventilated that in fact in both the FIRs Ashok Mittal had played an important role to implicate the 5 petitioners in the case, whereas he himself has exhibited himself to be the perpetrator of crime and engineered both the FIRs against the petitioners for obvious reasons and on the top of it, Police did not ask anything from him, rather he has been getting protection from them. He further submitted that so far as the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is concerned, nothing is required to be recovered from them, entire record is with the police and they have been joining the police investigation from day one and there is no complaint that they did not render any assistance to the police. After appraising the rival contentions of the parties against the above background, for the present, the Court is concerned only about the fact whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and will yield some result. For that, in my opinion, insofar as petitioner Subhash Ahluwlia is concerned, nothing has come against him except the fact that petitioner Meera Walia happens to be his wife. She is alleged to have played the main role in the aforesaid episode to make the case of prosecution weak, in the earlier FIR. The contention that the source of money which was alleged to have been paid through Ram Niwas Gupta to the complainant, for that the record of the investigation shows that the money was already drawn from The State Bank a day earlier by someone and for that matter, the police can easily interrogate the bank officials as to who has drawn the money and from whose account. Insofar as the voice sample of petitioner Meera Walia is concerned, that can be taken by the police even without custody and 6 such evidence in no case hamper the prosecution case in any manner. Therefore, without commenting upon further into the matter, in my opinion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners will not yield any result nor it is necessary in the fact situation. Accordingly, the request of the petitioners for their pre-arrest bail is allowed and the interim bail granted on 17.3.2010 to the petitioner Subhash Ahluwalia and on 19.3.2010 to petitioner Meera Walia, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions with a further additional condition that the petitioners shall present themselves in the court as and when required to do so. Any observations made in this order, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. In case the parties apply application for urgent copies, it be supplied to them as per rules. Petitions stand disposed of. March 25, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.