IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1053 of 2009 Date of decision : 21.12.2009. Prem Dass …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 393 of 2006 dated 17.9.2006 registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner is serving in the police department for the last more than 30 years. The petitioner has come to know registration of FIR No. 393 of 2006 dated 17.9.2006. The petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. The ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes 2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner on account of the registration of the case apprehends his arrest in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation, no recovery is to be made from him. There are several accused in the case and about 23 / 24 accused have already been granted bail by the High Court or Sessions Judge. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. The learned Additional Advocate has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that several policemen have illegally withdrawn T.A. worth lacs of ruppes. The petitioner has committed serious offence. The learned Additional Advocate General has however, submitted that petitioner has done the attestation but has not actually withdrawn the amount. The learned Additional Advocate General has not denied that about 23 policemen have been granted bail in the case either by the High Court or other courts. The learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to main accused Luther Chand. The application of the State for cancellation of bail of Luther Chand has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 7.10.2009. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The FIR No. 393 of 2006 was registered on 17.9.2006. Many accused have been released on bail by the High Court or learned Sessions Judge. The main accused Luther Chand has already been granted anticipatory bail and the application of the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail of Luther Chand has been rejected on 7.10.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. The 3 allegations against the petitioner as per submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General are with respect to attestation of documents and he has not actually withdrawn any amount for his own benefit. The petitioner has joined the investigation. It is not the case of the investigating agency that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 393 of 2006 dated 17.9.2006 registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 21, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.