IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.1411 of 2010. Decided on: December 22, 2010 Devi Sarup …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A case, under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, has been registered against the petitioner, for allegedly damaging a water supply line, carrying water to the houses of three persons, named in the FIR. No recovery etc. is to be effected. Police, however, intend to interrogate the petitioner to find out the motive of the offence. This cannot be a ground for rejection of the bail plea of the petitioner. Interrogation of the petitioner can be carried out, even if he is ordered to be released on bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order of interim bail dated 20th December, 2010 is made absolute. The order is, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner joins the investigation as, when and where called upon to do so. Petition stands disposed of. December 22, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?