1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 771 of 2011. Date of decision: 10.10.2011. Anwar Ali. ......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. Imran Khan, 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. 304/2011 dated 23.09.2011 under Sections 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner is running a fair price shop depot of kerosene oil. A case has been registered against one Nirmal Kumar at Police Station Paonta Sahib under Sections 3,7 of the Essential Commodities Act on account of recovery of 1360 litres kerosene oil from him. It has been alleged that Nirmal Kumar during investigation has disclosed that he has purchased some kerosene oil from petitioner. The petitioner now apprehends his arrest in FIR No. 304/2011 dated 23.09.2011, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib. 3. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 innocent, he has committed no offence. Nirmal Kumar has falsely implicated the petitioner in order to save himself. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. 4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of the status report. It has been stated that 1360 litres kerosene oil was recovered from one Nirmal Kumar, who was arrested on 23.09.2011, but has been released on bail on 27.09.2011 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib. Nirmal Kumar during investigation has disclosed that he had purchased 120 litres of kerosene oil from petitioner which was delivered by petitioner to Nirmal Kumar on 21.09.2011 in Jeep No. HR-03B-3390. It has been stated that petitioner has handed over the record which has been taken into possession, however, petitioner has not handed over vehicle No. HR-03B-3390. The learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the status report has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police file. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold 120 litres of kerosene oil illegally to Nirmal Kumar on 21.09.2011. The kerosene oil was delivered to Nirmal Kumar by petitioner in vehicle No. HR-03B-3390. Nirmal Kumar was arrested on 23.09.3011, but he has been released on bail by a Court at Paonta Sahib on 27.09.2011. The allegation against Nirmal Kumar is that 1360 litres kerosene oil was illegally found in his possession. The petitioner has already handed over the entire record to the Investigating Agency. It appears now the only requirement of the Investigating Agency is the recovery of vehicle used 3 by the petitioner for delivering kerosene oil to Nirmal Kumar. The main accused Nirmal Kumar has already been released on bail. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, application is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No.304/2011 dated 23.09.2011, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib under Sections 3,7 of the Essential Commodities Act, he 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 condition 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. In case the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle No. HR-03B-3390, then he shall produce the said vehicle to the Investigating Agency as and when required by the Investigating Agency. 7. 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. October 10, 2011. (Krt)