1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 924 of 2011. Date of decision: 22.11.2011. Sanjeev Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional 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.215/2011 dated 04.09.2011, registered at Police Station ,Una, under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It has been stated in the application that a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC has been registered against the petitioner which is pending investigation. In the course of investigation, Sub Inspector, Yash Pal, asked the petitioner to give him money, so that he could help him in the said case. On this, the petitioner contacted higher officials and apprised them regarding the illegal demand of money, upon which Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption , Hamirpur was deputed to look into the matter, if need be, case be registered and accordingly a case was registered. A raiding party was constituted and petitioner was directed to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 hand over the money to Sub Inspector Yash Pal and also give a signal to the raiding party enabling them to catch the Sub Inspector while accepting the money. The petitioner accordingly proceeded ahead with the money. The Sub Inspector asked the petitioner to keep the money in one corner of his room, but the Sub Inspector while attending a call on mobile phone came out of the office before the raiding party could catch him. The raiding party recovered the money from the room of the Sub Inspector. 3. The police instead of taking action on the complaint of the petitioner got registered a case against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, terming and treating that the petitioner attempted to give bribe to the Sub Inspector. The case was registered on 04.09.2011. The petitioner had been associating the police, but nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The F.I.R. No. 215 of 2011 has been registered against the petitioner on 04.09.2011 as a counter-blast to pressurize the petitioner not to pursue the case against Sub Inspector Yash Pal. 4. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The Sub Inspector Yash Pal was insisting the petitioner for paying him ` 10,000/- which petitioner had already paid. The Sub Inspector Yash Pal had again pressurized the petitioner to give ` 10,000/- more and on this the petitioner approached the higher Officers, who advised him to be in touch with Anti Corruption Police. 5. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3 6. The status report has been filed. The bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the written complaint dated 04.09.2011 of Sub Inspector Yash Pal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 7. It has come during investigation that a case under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC has been registered against the petitioner on 18.04.2011 at Police Station, Una. The petitioner got registered F.I.R. No. 5 dated 04.09.2011, thereafter F.I.R. No. 215 has been registered at Police Station, Una, on 04.09.2011. G.D. Entry No. 40(A) dated 03.09.2011 has been made at 7.00 p.m.at the instance of Sub Inspector Yash Pal stating therein that Sanjeev Kumar had talked to him on telephone at 6.07 p.m.and told him that he would not come to the Police Station, he would meet him next day at 1.30. He also told that under the influence of someone-else he had talked about money by mistake, he should be saved in this case. 8. G.D. Entry No. 43(A) dated 03.09.2011 has been recorded at 7.05 p.m.at the instance of Inspector R.R.Thakur stating therein that on 02.09.2011 Sanjeev Kumar had told him on telephone during noon that he had paid `10,000/- to the Investigating Officer in F.I.R. No. 98 of 2011. He asked him how much more money was to be given. He requested for cancellation report in the case. On this, the Officer reprimanded Sanjeev Kumar and dis-connected the phone. 9. G.D.Entry No. 21(A) has been recorded on 03.09.2011 at 11.45 p.m.at the instance of Sub Inspector Yash Pal wherein it has been stated that on 02.09.2011 Sanjeev Kumar accused in FIR No. 98 of 4 2011 told him on telephone that he could not report on 02.09.2011 as directed. He has arranged `10,000/-, how much more money was to be arranged. He could pay ` 40,000/- more and requested for preparing cancellation report. The Officer asked him to join the investigation and told him that even his talking in those terms is an offence. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Officers. 10. In F.I.R. No. 215 of 2011, statement of K.G.Kapoor, Additional S.P., Una, has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated that on 03.09.2011 Sub Inspector Yash Pal told him in the Office that accused in F.I.R.No. 98 of 2011 for influencing the investigation had been talking to him on telephone and had been asking for preparing cancellation report. He has stated that he advised Sub Inspector Yash Pal that whatever Sanjeev Kumar had been saying, the same be recorded in rapat roznamcha, so that action could be taken against him. 11. The allegations in all the aforesaid three F.I.R.s are serious. The present bail application has been filed for bail in F.I.R. No. 215 of 2011. In F.I.R. No. 98 of 2011, the petitioner is an accused. In F.I.R. No. 5 dated 04.09.2011, the allegations are against Sub Inspector Yash Pal, H.C. Satish Kumar and H.H.C. Purshotam Dass. It has been stated in the status report that the call details revealed that in the past one month, petitioner had talked to Sub Inspector Yash Pal 14 times. 12. The F.I.R. No. 5 of 2011 and F.I.R.No. 215 of 2011 are being investigated by different Officers. There are allegations in F.I.R. No. 215 of 2011 that petitioner committed an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations are serious. The 5 F.I.R.No. 215 of 2011 has been registered on 04.09.2011, but it appears the Investigating Agency activated only after filing of the bail application. There is nothing in the status report that the petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation nor it has been stated that any recovery is to be made from the petitioner. It has also not been stated in the status report that petitioner in any way is influencing prosecution witnesses of F.I.R.No.215 of 2011. There is nothing in the status report that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required nor custodial interrogation of the petitioner has been prayed in the status report. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 13. In view of above, the application is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No.215/2011 dated 04.09.2011, registered at Police Station ,Una, under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 14. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'dasti'. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 22, 2011. (Krt)