Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.1054 of 2008. Dated of Decision: October 23, 2008. Budhi Singh Thakur …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner Budhi Singh Thakur is apprehending arrest in the FIR No.148/2008, registered on 14.10.2008 in Police Station Rampur, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, thus, the instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Report has been filed in the connected matter. Heard. Shri Shrawan Dogra, Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner alongwith other members of the ‘State Volleyball Association’ assembled on 13.10.08 for electing the office bearers of the said association in ‘Bushehar Sadan’ at Rampur. The petitioner was presiding over the said meeting. In the meantime, a few persons including the complainant in the present FIR alongwith few others 2 forcibly entered into the room and caused the disturbance and manhandled the some members present there and further tried to obstruct the process of the election. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a complaint in police Station Rampur on the same day, but the FIR was not lodged and the petitioner was asked to visit the police station next day. On 14.10.2008, the written complaint was taken at 10.30 a.m. and its receipt was appended on its copy, but despite that again the FIR was not registered, whereas, the complainant FIR No.148/08 approached to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla, who sent the ruqa through a Constable, on this ruqa the FIR No.148/08 was registered at 1.30 p.m. at Rampur. Thereafter at about 4.15 P.M. the FIR No.149/2008 on the complaint of Budhi Singh Thakur, the present petitioner was registered subsequently in the same police station. The above facts were stated to have been brought in the notice of police authorities again on 18.10.2008 by making a representation. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his complaint was first in time, it should have been registered prior to the present FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioners obeyed the orders of this court and pursuant to the last order he joined the investigation, he was interrogated and no recovery is to be effected from him. Contra Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has submitted that the police was not approached by the complainant on 13th October, 2008, as alleged, however, on 14th October, 2008, only at about 4.15 P.M. a complaint was received on behalf of the petitioner, it was then, the FIR No.149/08 was registered and no partiality was shown to any of the parties and the cases of both the parties are 3 being fairly investigated. It is however submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, with respect to the lodging of FIRs, the above facts need not be decided at this stage, however, the petitioner has joined the investigation of this case pursuant to the last order and no recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, the interim bail granted on 16.10.2008 is hereby confirmed, subject to the modification therein that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall furnish the bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, if not already furnished, subject to the further conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall join the investigation of this case and also attend the court as and when required to do so. (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner. Needless to say that in case the petitioner shall cause any breach of the conditions, mentioned above, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. Bail bonds if already furnished, will be subject to the above conditions. Application stands disposed of. October 23, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. 4