IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.259 of 2010. Decided on: 7th April, 2010. __________________________________________________________________ Hemant Sharma ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP. ....Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) Report filed. Heard and gone through the record. A case under Sections 395, 397, 452 of the Indian Penal Code stands registered in terms of FIR No.75 of 2010 in Police Station, Paonta Sahib against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR, as such the instant application has been moved under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail. In nutshell the prosecution case is that Ajay Bhardwaj was a partner in “Paonta Cable Network” working in Paonta Sahib with Shri Arvind Gupta and six others. They were engaged in cable networking of the Television in the said area. His partner Arvind Gupta is alleged to have issued a cheque to the tune of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rs.12,50,000/- in favour of Ajay Bhardwaj, the other co-accused which was bounced. Ultimately the matter was compromised and the cheque amount was paid back. On account of the above dispute Ajay Bhardwaj gave- up the partnership in the said firm and started his own cabling network separately with the present petitioner. It is alleged that on 13th March, 2010 at about 7.15 a.m. the petitioner was driving the car of Shri Ajay Bhardwaj. They alongwith 5/6 persons entered the residence-cum-control room of the said firm, gave beatings to the Chowkidar/complainant and committed theft of some gadgets, which were to be used for cabling in the area. The complainant was medically examined. He had sustained two simple injuries on his person. Ajay Bhardwaj was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. Now on the basis of statements of Sunita and Sanjay recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is impleaded in the case that he was the person who was assisting the main accused by driving the car and the car was parked outside of the control room of “Paonta Cable Network”, where the incident took place. Pursuant to the last order, the petitioner joined investigation. In my opinion, the custodial interrogation in this case will not yield any fruitful result, in view of the fact that the petitioner and Ajay Bhardwaj were already having some dispute with the complainant party who are their business rivals. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 31st March, 2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions and also on the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation in this case as and when required and shall present himself in the Court whenever required to do so. - 3 - Any expression or observations made heretofore, shall not affect the merits of the case, as it is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition. The petition stands disposed of. April 7, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)