IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.: 785 of 2008. Decided on: 14.08.2008. _________________________________________________________ Khub Ram. … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in F.I.R. No. 232 of 2008, dated 11.7.2008 registered with Police Station, Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent has filed the status report. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Mr. R.L. Chaudhary has strenuously argued that his client has been falsely implicated in the above noted F.I.R. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary submits that his client has purchased the property on 24.4.2008 from Indira Kumari, who was a co-sharer of the property. He further submits that the stamp duty was paid as per the market value assessed by the revenue staff and if there is a deficiency, the same cannot be attributed to his client. He then contended that co-accused Devinder Jamwal had already been granted pre-arrest bail which was confirmed on 30.7.2008 in Cr.MPM No.759 of 2008 and co-accused Subhash Thakur had also been granted pre-arrest bail in Cr.MPM No.758 of 2008 by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that as per the report of the Halqua Patwari, Patwar Circle, Paddal, one year average sale price of land in Seri Mohal comes to Rs.15,243/- per square meter and as per sale deed 6766.42 square meter of land has been sold. According to him the value of the land is Rs.10,31,46,629.83. He further contended that the valuation of the building has not been conducted property and the valuation report of the XEN, HP,PWD, Division No.2 is awaited. He lastly contended that the petitioner did not have the requisite means to purchase the land and according to him it was a benami transaction. According to him, the State has suffered a loss of rupees 33 lakhs. The Court had summoned the records of Cr.MPM No.758 and Cr.MPM No.759 of 2008 to ensure whether pre-arrest bail has been granted to the co-accused Devinder Jamwal and Shri Subhash Thakur - 3 - as mentioned in para 6 of the application. The averment made in para 6 is false. The co-accused were never enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court has passed interim order on 1st August, 2008 and the petitioner was directed to make himself available for the purpose of investigation before the Investigating Officer on 2.8.2008 at 10.00 a.m. and to continue join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. However, on 8.8.2008, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that despite the order dated 1.8.2008, the petitioner has not joined the investigation. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment and therefore he could not join the investigation. According to him, the petitioner was admitted in some hospital at Chandigarh. This Court in these circumstances directed the matter to be put up for today. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that despite the peremptory directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has not joined the investigation. The petitioner has not placed on record the copy of any medical record to substantiate that he was suffering from heart ailment. If the petitioner was admitted in some hospital, the admission slip was required to be produced before this Court to substantiate that the petitioner was admitted in some hospital. The Court is of the firm opinion that taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter; it is not a fit case where the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. The investigation is at the thresh-hold. The petitioner despite the direction - 4 - given by this Court on 1.8.2008 and 8.8.2008 has not joined the investigation. The evidence collected during the investigation points out the involvement of the petitioner in this serious case. Consequently, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms. August 14, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.