IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.115 of 2009 Cr.MP(M) No.116 of 2009 Date of decision: 13.3.2009 1. Ved Prakash …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 2. Bodh Raj ….Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista , Advocate ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ( in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.115 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.116 of 2009 both having arisen out of FIR No.56 of 2008 dated 12.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Indora , District Kangra under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Ved Prakash has filed Cr.MP(M) No.115 of 2009 and Bodh Raj Cr.MP(M) No.116 of 2009 on the grounds that one Krishan Kumar has Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 lodged false FIR No.56 of 2008 at Police Station, Indora on 12.3.2008 against Bodh Raj who was elected as an MLA from Gangath Constituency in the year 2003. The complainant has falsely alleged that Bodh Raj has obtained false certificate that he belongs to Lohar caste for contesting the election of MLA. The election of Bodh Raj was challenged by Desh Raj by way of election petition which was dismissed by this Court but, in appeal Supreme Court has set aside the decision of this Court and allowed the election petition. Thereafter Krishan Kumar has lodged the complaint. It has been submitted in both the petitions that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence. They are innocent. Krishan Kumar has lodged the complaint in order to settle personal scores as Krishan Kumar was an aspirant for ticket for Vidhan Sabha elections. The petitioners are ready to join investigation. No recovery is to be made from them. It has been submitted that pursuant to the order dated 6.3.2009 of this Court, they have joined the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. On these grounds the petitioners have filed petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The respondent has filed the status report. 3. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that the case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 20.2.2008 of Krishan Kumar. Bodh Raj contested 2003 election on the basis of false scheduled caste certificate. The Supreme Court has decided the case in favour of the Desh Raj and the election of Bodh Raj was set aside. The caste certificate of Bodh Raj was prepared by the Tehsil office in which Bodh Raj has been shown as Lohar. It has been alleged that in the Panchayat Family Register of Gram Panchayat, Mohtli the caste Tarkhan of family members of Bodh Raj after cutting was changed to Lohar. The 3 caste of Bodh Raj at the time of school admission has been shown as Tarkhan. In brief allegations against Bodh Raj are that he got prepared Lohar certificate and he intentionally took benefit of caste Lohar instead of Tarkhan. The handwritings of Bodh Raj, Ved Prakash, former Panchayat Secretary Buta Ram and Ajit Singh have been taken and sent for opinion. Bodh Raj remained Vice President of his Panchayat from 1991 to 1995 and Ved Parkash remained Pardhan of that Panchayat from 1985 to 1995. Bodh Raj with the help of Ved Prakash and Panchayat Secretary made cuttings in the family registers. 4. As per status report, the alleged cutting was made in the family register in between 1985 to 1995 and the case was registered on 12.3.2008. The prosecution case is based upon documents. There is an allegation that in family register cutting was made and caste was changed by Bodh Raj with the help of Panchayat Secretary but surprisingly, nothing has been stated whether said Panchayat Secretary has been made accused or not. The prosecution has not come forward with the plea that some recoveries are to be made from petitioners, nor it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. At this stage the prosecution has not come forward with the plea that cuttings were made by the petitioners in the family registers in presence of some particular person(s). The petitioners are ready to join the investigation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly both Cr.MP(M) No.115 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.116 of 2009 are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.56 of 2008 dated 12.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Indora , 4 District Kangra under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. They shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of the applications and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 13, 2009 (sks) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M No.116 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.3.2009 Bodh Raj ………Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge For judgment, see Judgment of date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.115 of 2009, titled Ved Prakash vs. State of H.P. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 13, 2008 (sks)