1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 903 of 2011. Date of decision: 15.11.2011. Sudesh Chand. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.143/2011 dated 18.10.2011, registered at Police Station ,Karsog, under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that on 18.10.2011 petitioner and Jai Prakash had gone to Karsog for fixing the date of marriage of Jai Prakash's daughter at Koti which is on way to Karsog. Jai Prakash had gone to Koti and petitioner to 'Kamaksha Temple' at Karsog. Petitioner and Jai Prakash stayed at Karsog on 18.10.2011. Petitioner and Jai Prakash took lift in the car of Mast Ram. Petitioner and Jai Prakash deboarded the car at Luhri. The petitioner later on came to know that a truck loaded with 26 G.I. Pipe lengths being driven by one Kuldeep was seized at Kotlu on 19.10.2011 and FIR No. 143 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 dated 18.10.2011 has been registered. The petitioner came to know that Mast Ram and Kailash have been named in that FIR. It appears that in order to save themselves, Mast Ram and Kailash have named petitioner and Jai Prakash also in the commission of offence. The petitioner is innocent, he is a government employee. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. 3. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Des Raj, J.E., I&PH Division, Karsog, Mandi alleging theft of G.I.Pipes from I&PH store, Banthal on 18.10.2011 during night. It has been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that in all there are five accused namely Kuldeep Kumar, Kailash Chand, Mast Ram, Jai Prakash and petitioner. It has been stated that except petitioner other accused have been released on bail by Courts below on different dates. The recovery has been made. The Investigation in the case is almost complete. It has, however, been stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain other thefts in the area. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 4. Heard and perused the record. It has been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that investigation in the case is almost complete, recovery has been made. There is nothing in the status report that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. The Investigating Agency has opposed the bail application on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in order to ascertain other 3 thefts in the area. However, it has not been stated in the status report that petitioner is an accused in other cases of theft in the area nor there is an allegation that there is suspicion regarding the involvement of petitioner in other cases of theft in the area. The demand of custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the Investigating Agency to ascertain the involvement of petitioner in other cases of theft is vague. There is no allegation in the status report that any recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. In these circumstances, application is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No.143/2011 dated 18.10.2011, registered at Police Station ,Karsog, under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioner 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 the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed 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 judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'dasti'. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 15, 2011. (Krt)