IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 804 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.10.2011 Hem Singh …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 76 of 2011 dated 26.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On account of registration of the case, the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the case. The petitioner has never produced any certificate of Scheduled Tribe to the respondents to grab the job. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 3. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. It has been stated that the petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi on 29.9.2011. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated in the status report that case has been registered on the basis of letter dated 4.8.2011 alongwith the written complaint of Udham Singh Thakur alleging therein that the petitioner is resident of village Nihon, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi. He prepared a forged S.T.(Gaddi) certificate and got service and promotion in the Forest Department. In fact the petitioner is Rajput but secured job on the basis of false certificate. A prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the record. It has been stated in the status report that service record of Hem Singh working as B.O. in the office of DFO, Joginder Nagar, has been obtained. In the service record collected from the office of DFO, Joginder Nagar, Hem Singh has been shown as Scheduled Tribe and got promotion as B.O. in the year 2003 as Scheduled Tribe. But in the service record, there is no certificate of Scheduled Tribe of Hem Singh. As per Panchayat record, Hem Singh is Rajput. In the appointment letter and in the medical certificate the petitioner has been shown Scheduled Tribe (Gaddi). In the status report, it has been stated that Hem Singh took the stand that he never submitted any Scheduled Tribe certificate at the time of his appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 3 the name of the petitioner was sponsored from Reckong Peo as General Candidate but it appears the department considered the petitioner as Scheduled Tribe since his name was sponsored from Reckong Peo which is a Scheduled Tribe area. 6. The case against the petitioner appears to be document based. The investigating agency has already collected some documents. However, till now the investigating agency has not collected any Scheduled Tribe certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment and promotion in the department. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. In these circumstances, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 76 of 2011 dated 26.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC., the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any in any manner. 8. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. October 11, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.