IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 591 of 2011. Date of decision: 11.8.2011. Het Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, 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. 106 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Karsog on 31.7.2011, under Sections 379, 336, 34 IPC, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The status report has been filed and record perused. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent and has committed no offence. It has also been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in view of registration of FIR No. 106 of 2011 at Police Station, Karsog. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… in accordance with the directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that case has been registered on the basis of statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Umesh Kumar, who noticed that JCB operator was illegally stacking sand and aggregate at one place and with the help of JCB HP 30A- 3031 loading the same in the tippers on the directions of petitioner. The JCB has damaged the road by cutting. The said road is the approach road for the hotel of the complainant. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel of either side. In the status report, it has been stated that JCB has been taken into possession alongwith key and documents. The accused Chaman Lal Operator of JCB was arrested on 1.8.2011, who has been released on bail on 2.8.2011 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karsog. The petitioner has made disclosure statement and on the basis of that statement 40 tipper loads of sand have been recovered. The material has been handed over to one forest guard Roop Ram on sapurdari. It has been stated in the status report that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. An apprehension has been shown that if petitioner is released on bail, then he may terrorise the prosecution witnesses and win over them and commit the same offence again. …3… 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General has relied the statement of Prem Lal, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has stated that petitioner had taken his JBC on rent for extraction of sand alongwith tipper owned by Prem Lal. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that petitioner has illegally extracted sand and aggregate owned by the government and has committed serious offence. The recovery has already been made by the investigating agency. In the status report, it has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he has personal enmity with Umesh Kumar, who lodged the false complaint against him. Umesh Kumar had earlier lodged false complaint against the petitioner, which was found baseless. The apprehension of prosecution that petitioner may win over, terrorise the prosecution witnesses in case he is released on bail is without foundation. Similarly the apprehension of prosecution that petitioner will repeat the offence is not supported by evidence of past conduct of petitioner whether in past also he has committed such offence. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in case FIR No. 106 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Karsog on 31.7.2011, under Sections 379, 336, 34 IPC, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like …4… amount to the satisfaction of 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 with the prosecution evidence in any manner nor terrorise the prosecution witnesses. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti. August 11, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.