IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 586 of 2011. Date of decision: 09.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Sushil Kumar. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surinder P.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 7 of 2011 dated 24.06.2011, registered at Police Station SV & ACB Nahan under Section 135(1)(a) Electricity Act, Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The status report has been filed, record perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that one Satinder Mohan of Kala Amb was sanctioned an industrial connection for 10 horse power by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board (for short ‘Board’) in the year 1999. He had installed his electric motor in a big hall and his meter was installed in the adjoining room. The factory of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Satinder Mohan is located in Himachal Pradesh, but is just near Haryana border. 3. In adjoining Haryana area, Satinder Mohan has a brick kiln. Satinder Mohan sometime back laid underground wire and took electricity to his brick kiln from the electricity connection provided by the Board. The readings of the meter were regularly taken and bills were raised. The consumer had been paying the electricity consumption charges. 4. On 24.06.2011, somebody informed the police that Satinder Mohan was taking electricity to his brick kiln in Haryana. On this police raided the premises of Satinder Mohan and found that complaint was genuine and on that basis a case was registered. Satinder Mohan and Sunder Singh, Junior Engineer, HPSEB, were arrested on 25.06.2011. They were released on bail by learned Special Judge,Nahan, on 26.06.2011. 5. The petitioner had also joined investigation on 24.06.2011 and 25.06.2011. However, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application on 27.06.2011. The learned Special Judge, District Sirmour at Nahan, granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 27.06.2011, but dismissed the application on 29.07.2011. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present bail application. 6. It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. He is ready to join the investigation. The two other accused Satinder Mohan consumer and Sunder Singh, Junior Engineer, have already been released on bail by the learned Special …3… Judge. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner has joined the investigation and he is ready to furnish bail bonds in terms of the order of this Court if he is released on bail. 7. The application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General. It has been stated in the status report that petitioner joined the investigation on 04.08.2011 to 06.08.2011. The petitioner remained posted at Kala Amb twice. The consumer had taken benefit of electricity illegally from 1999 to 2011 with the connivance of employees and officers of the Board. The petitioner remained posted at Kala Amb as Junior Engineer from 2003 to 2005 and had been taking readings of the meter in question during that period, but never took any step for dis-connection of electricity connection of the consumer. The petitioner is now posted as Sub Divisional Officer at Kala Amb, but again he did not take any step for dis-connection of electricity connection of Satinder Mohan consumer. He has given undue benefit to Satinder Mohan as well as caused loss to the government. In case petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to terrorize the witnesses and win over the witnesses. The petitioner is not coming out with truth. The prayer has been made for rejection of his bail application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been stated by Mr. S.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate, that main accused Satinder Mohan has been released on bail by learned Special Judge so also Sunder Singh, Junior Engineer. The electricity connection was not given to Satinder Mohan during the tenure of petitioner at Kala Amb either as Junior Engineer or Sub Divisional Officer. It has not been …4… shown by the Investigating Agency that at any point of time the petitioner was aware of the hidden electricity wire through which Satinder Mohan had taken the electricity from the electricity connection given by the Board to his brick kiln located in Haryana. He has submitted that Kala Amb is the boundary of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. Satinder Mohan has some property in Himachal Pradesh and in the adjoining land in Haryana. 9. It has not been pointed out that some recovery is to be made from the petitioner nor it has been pointed out for what purpose the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner will terrorize and win over the prosecution witnesses is not supported from contemporaneous material. The other two co-accused have already been released on bail. 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. 8. In view of above, petition is allowed. The petitioner in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 7 of 2011 dated 24.06.2011, registered at Police Station SV & ACB Nahan under Section 135(1)(a) Electricity Act, Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the condition that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He shall …5… not hamper investigation and tamper prosecution evidence or make an attempt to win over prosecution witnesses. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. August 9, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.