1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 641 of 2011. Date of decision: 30.08.2011. Jai Singh. ......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. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mehar Chand, 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 439 Cr.P.C.for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 123/2011 dated 15.04.2011, registered at Police Station, Indora, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that a case has been registered against petitioner and another person Dinesh Bajaj at Police Station, Indora, vide FIR No. 123/2011 on 15.04.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2011 and since 04.07.2011, he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The alleged bills were prepared when petitioner was on leave. The allegation against the petitioner is that Dinesh Bajaj co-accused had paid some amount to the petitioner out of the ill-gotten amount. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 3. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C which has been dismissed on 06.08.2011 by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that he belongs to Uttar Pradesh, whereas, for the last about 3-4 years, the petitioner is residing in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner is ready to furnish local surety in case he is released on bail. It has been submitted that continuous detention of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The father of the petitioner is suffering from heart problem. The petitioner is the only bread-earner of the family. There is no legally acceptable evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. It has been stated in the status report that case has been registered on the basis of complaint of Dalip Kumar Jain. It has been alleged that Dinesh Bajaj has pilfered 7.635 metric tonne refined oil and 7.580 metric tonne vegetable oil, prepared forged bills and sold the same somewhere. It has come in investigation that an amount of Rs. 10,53,701/- has been recovered from Dinesh Bajaj which has been deposited in the account of 'Ruchi Soya Industry' through Parth Trading Company, Jasur and Karam Chand and Company. Dinesh Bajaj has disclosed that he had paid some amount to petitioner Security Incharge. Dinesh Bajaj and petitioner in conspiracy with each other had pilfered Rs. 11,79,000/- out of which Rs. 10,53,710/- has been deposited back in the account of 'Ruchi Soya Industry'. The amount of Rs. 1,25,290/- has been used by Dinesh Bajaj and Jai Singh for their own benefits. The key 3 of the store of Damtal Depot used to remain with Jai Singh. On these grounds, the bail application has been opposed. 6. I have considered the contentions on both sides and have also gone through the police file. It has been submitted that challan has been submitted on 18.08.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that accused Dinesh Bajaj has been released on bail on 23.08.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 618 of 2011. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that he is a resident of Utter Pradesh. Out of the pilfered amount of Rs.11,79,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,53,710/- has already been deposited in the account of 'Ruchi Soya Industry'. The balance amount is left Rs. 1,25,290/-. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he helped Dinesh Bajaj inasmuch as he was having the key of the store. Dinesh Bajaj has already been released on bail. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been submitted. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period as the trial of the case will take some time. In these circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 123/2011 dated 15.04.2011, registered at Police Station, Indora, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties each of the like amount residing within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses. In case , the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail, then the prosecution shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. 4 8. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'dasti'. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. August 30, 2011. (Krt)