IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1122 of 2009 Date of decision: January 4, 2010. Lachhman Dass …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. D..N.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No. 43/09 dated 27.12.2009, under Sections 379, 120-B IPC, 41,42 Indian Forest Act and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, S.V & A.C.B., Shimla. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is innocent and he is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report in which it has been submitted that some timber detailed in the status report was recovered from the house of petitioner and nearby area. It has been submitted that the petitioner has given some explanation with respect to deodar timber, but his explanation for that also is found not satisfactory. The petitioner has not given any explanation how he has taken into possession Kail sleepers and huge quantity of timber which has been recovered from his house and adjoining areas. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that only one stump of deodar tree was shown by the petitioner from where he allegedly extracted deodar timber under T.D. permit, but the petitioner has not given any explanation with respect to rest of the timber recovered from his house and adjoining area. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the status report the allegation of theft of timber on the part of petitioner is lacking. The only allegation is with respect to recovery of some timber from the house and adjoining area of the petitioner. It has been stated that timber has already been taken into possession. There is nothing in the status report that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. In these circumstances, no case for custodial interrogation has been made out. 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, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR 43/09 dated 27.12.2009, under …3… Sections 379, 120-B IPC, 41,42 Indian Forest Act and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, S.V & A.C.B., Shimla, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in the order are for the disposal of this petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. January 4, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.