Cr. MP (M) No. 34 and 35 of 2010. 22.2.2010Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard. The petitioners above named have sought their pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 7/2009, registered in State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station Khallini, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, 477 A IPC and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Precisely, the allegations against the petitioners are that the complainant Kulbhushan Rawat and Bhupinder Singh Rawat, both had taken a loan way-back in the year 1985-86 from the H.P.F.C. for setting up of a crusher unit in village Sawara. After establishing this unit, it was allegedly leased out to the petitioners herein in the year 1988. Since the original loanees were defaulters, recovery proceedings were initiated by the H.P.F.C. Ultimately the crusher unit was -2- taken into possession by H.P.F.C. under Section 29 of the H.P. State Financial Corporation Act and was sold in the year 1991 for Rs. 3.20 lacs. However, for the balance amount, recovery proceedings against the original loanees were initiated by the H.P.F.C., which are still pending. The complainant made a complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State with the allegations that they had leased out the said unit to the accused- petitioners by executing a deed, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar but these documents were got mis-placed. Since the lease-deed was missing from the office of the Sub-Registrar, as such they apprehended that the petitioners had a hand-in-glove with the official of the office of Sub-Registrar to help them to wriggle out from any sort of liability. The complaint was marked to Police, on the basis of this complaint FIR was registered and the investigation is going on. -3- The petitioner apprehended their arrest. They applied for pre-arrest bail and they were granted interim bail. During the investigation in this case, petitioners have joined the investigation. The Vigilance Department of the Police is investigating the case. They could not trace out the copy of lease deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar and original from the office of H.P.F.C. The receipt, which was issued in favour of the complainant, at the time of its registration, was also found missing as such the record-Keeper of the office of Sub- Registrar was also made an accused in this case. He was arrested and later granted bail by the learned Special Judge, Shimla. The Police apprehends that the original lease deed, which was allegedly handed over in the office of H.P.F.C., was also got misplaced in connivance with the petitioners. On these allegations, the -4- bail is opposed that in case the petitioners are released on bail, it will be difficult to recover the document aforesaid. In my opinion, against the aforesaid backgrounds investigation of this case will not hamper in any way, in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitions have a case for their bail, it is thus hereby ordered that in the event of petitioners’ arrest, they be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This bail shall be subject to the conditions referred to in the interim order dated 22.1.2010 and following conditions shall be further added to it:- (a) That the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall present themselves for the -5- purpose of investigation as and when required. (b) To start with the petitioners shall report for the investigation on 23.2.2010 at 10 a.m. in Police Station Khallini, Shimla, H.P. Needless to say, if they would commit the breach of any of the conditions, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. With these directions, the petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti. (Surinder Singh),J February 22, 2010 (cm)