1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.277 of 2009. Decided on: April 29, 2009 ___________________________________________________ Mukesh Sharma ……..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr.J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. ________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral) : The petitioner is apprehending arrest in FIR No.8/2008 registered on 27.12.2008, under Sections 420, 407, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station SV & ACB, Solan (H.P.), allegedly for a short supply of 25 bitumen drums at Solan, which were carried in the truck from Panipat refinery along with other bitumen drums vide G.R. No.2676 dated 23.10.2007. Report filed. Heard. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 As per the case of the prosecution, in fact 115 drums were delivered to the petitioner-transporter at Panipat against aforesaid G.R. for its supply at Solan, but he supplied 25 drums less, that too after two months, whereas the petitioner was required to deliver it within 5 days at the place of destination. The record reveals that the petitioner had informed the General Manager, H.P. Agro Industries Limited vide his letter dated 22.10.2008 having supplied only 90 drums against G.R. No.2676 dated 23.10.2007. In case, there is short supply, there is a clause in the agreement executed between the petitioner and H.P. Agro Industries Limited that in the event of any loss of Bitumen recorded at the end of destination, the cost of each shortages will be debited and recovered from the bills, if any, pending for payment with the Him Agro Industries Limited or shall be made good directly by the petitioner or would be adjusted against any other amount payable by the said Corporation to the present 3 petitioner, who are only carrier of the bitumen. It is the case of the petitioner that he has also furnished the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, in view of the situation which emerges above keeping in view the fact that pursuant to the last order, the petitioner has joined the investigation of this case, as such his petition for granting anticipatory bail is allowed and the interim order passed on 21.4.2009 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions with an additional condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation of this case on 4.5.2009 at 11 A.M. in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan and thereafter as and when required by the police till the case remains under the investigation. Further the petitioner shall also present himself in the court whenever required to do so. In case the petitioner shall change his place of residence, it shall be intimated by him, in writing, to the Incharge of the Anti Corruption 4 Department/ Investigating Officer, Solan forthwith. Needless to say that if the petitioner flouts any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of bail shall stand cancelled. The applications stand disposed of. Orders Dasti. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 29, 2009. (Pds)