IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 985 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.11.2009 ____________________________________________________________ Naresh Vaishashat …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. AG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 9/07 dated 4.10.2007 registered at Police Station, S.V. & ACB, Una, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 and Sections 4,5,6 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Parkash Chand and M/s. R.R. Builders were A Class Contractors had worked for PWD under the charge of Junior Engineer. The bills of Parkash Chand were paid for the works carried out by him but one bill was kept pending since some recovery _______________________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes 2 was to be effected from him. This was also paid to him but later on FIR was registered after six months. It has been submitted that Senior Auditor Karam Singh Guleria, Accountant D.P. Bajaj and Parkash Chand Contractor have already been granted bail by the learned Special Judge, Una. The petitioner has committed no offence but in view of the registration of the case he apprehends his arrest in the case. It has been submitted that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that work worth Rs.26,82,865/- was awarded to Parkash Chand. In the award letter there was a condition that the contractor would purchase Bitumen from authorized dealer. It has come in investigation that Parkash Chand contractor in connivance with Sanjeev Agnihotri, Junior engineer, Om Parkash Assistant Engineer, Udho Ram Saini Executive Engineer, D.P. Bajaj, Divisional Accountant and Karam Singh Guleria Auditor got the payments of bills released. Parkash Chand contractor with the last bill had submitted an affidavit. It has come in investigation that the affidavit filed by Parkash Chand with the last bill was false but he got the amount of last bill released in his favour on the basis of affidavit. According to learned Addl. Advocate General on instructions received from Inspector Sher Singh present in the Court that an amount of Rs.2,38,024/- was recovered from Parkash Chand. Mr. Bansal on instructions received from Inspector Sher Singh has also stated that Karam Singh, Dharam Pal Bajaj and Parkash Chand have already been released on bail by learned Special Judge, Una. 4. The petitioner has joined the investigation. In the status report there is nothing to indicate that petitioner is not co-operating in the 3 investigation. It appears the case is documents based. The FIR was registered on 4.10.2007. The alleged payment was made to contractor in June 2005. There is nothing in the status report that petitioner is creating any obstruction in the investigation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 9/07 dated 4.10.2007 registered at Police Station, S.V. & ACB, Una, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 and Sections 4,5,6 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms November 17, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge