IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 814 of 2011. Date of decision: 10.10.2011. Harsh Mahajan ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. 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.94 of 2011 dated 30.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Dalhousie, Chamba, HP, under Sections 420, 467,468,471, 34 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has nothing to do with the case as well as the offence registered against him. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest on account of registration of the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 3. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by Ajay Mahajan in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dalhousie and in pursuance of direction given under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In addition to petitioner, there are three other accused, namely Avtar Singh, Hans Raj Thakur and Lajam Singh. 4. In the status report it has been stated that petitioner is the real brother of the complainant. Hans Raj Thakur accused No. 2 is the stamp vendor. It has been alleged that complainant and his another brother had executed two general power of attorneys, one in favour of Ajay Kumar accused No. 1 and other in favour of accused No. 2 Hans Raj Tahkur on 16.10.2010, which were registered on 18.10.2010. On 17.10.2010 the complainant came to know that Hans Raj Thakur accused No. 2 and petitioner have procured general power of attorneys in order to grab the property, on which the complainant on 18.10.2010 has revoked both the power of attorneys executed in favour of Avtar Singh and Hans Raj Thakur which were also registered on 18.10.2010. 5. It has also been stated that Avtar Singh accused No.1, Hans Raj Thakur accused No. 2 and petitioner even after coming to know that power of attorneys executed in their favour have been revoked, procured a copy of general power of attorney executed in favour of accused No. 1 from the office of Sub Registrar, Indora, although the same was cancelled. The accused No. 1, 2 and 4 in connivance with each other got prepared a sale deed regarding property. The complainant or his brother Naveen Kumar have not received any amount from accused No. 1, 2 and 4 and they have all cheated them to grab the property. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. The case against the petitioner is …3… documents based. There is nothing in the status report that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation, rather it has been stated in the status report that till now no case has been established against the petitioner Harsh Mahajan. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest. 7. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.94 of 2011 dated 30.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Dalhousie, Chamba, HP, under Sections 420, 467,468,471, 34 IPC, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in he sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the conditions that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper the investigation in any manner. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti. October 10, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.