IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 957 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.11.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Rekha …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Complainant in person. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 37 of 2011 dated 12.3.2011 registered at Police Station, Theog, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the FIR has been registered at Police Station, Theog on 12.3.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner levelling false allegations. In view of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner is apprehending her arrest in the case. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds and join the investigation. The petitioner had filed bail application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimla which was lateron withdrawn. The prayer has ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 3. The status report has been filed in which it has been stated that Lt. Colonel Daulat Singh Chauhan submitted written complaint at Police Post Deha on 12.3.2011. and on that basis case has been registered. It has come in investigation that the timber which was stated to have been used for construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Deothi was purchased vide bill No. 1441 dated 1.10.2009 amounting to ` 34,650/- from Shri Shyam Timber Industries, Panthaghati. It has been found that bill No. 1441 dated 1.10.2009 has not been issued by Shri Shyam Timber Industries. The bill book of the bill could not be recovered. The vehicle number and challan number were not annexed with the bill nor the entry of the bill has been made in the Forest Barrier, Dhalli. The bill is forged. 4. It has been stated that FIR No. 120 dated 4.8.2009 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Theog for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, FIR No. 66/11 dated 12.5.2011 has also been registered at Police Station, Theog against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 469, 34 IPC which is under investigation.. Similarly FIR No. 58 /2011 has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and FIR No. 38/2011 has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 341 IPC. The petitioner had earlier filed anticipatory bail application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimla in which interim bail was granted on 28.10.2011 and said application was 3 dismissed on 16.11.2011. Thereafter the petitioner had gone underground and joined the investigation only after obtaining interim bail from this Court. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner during investigation has disclosed that she utilized the timber in the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan from the timber which was lying in her house and bill was taken from some Nepali Contractor. The petitioner is not coming out with true facts regarding the bill. The possibility cannot be ruled out that timber used is of illicit felling. The petitioner is to be closely interrogated on all these aspects and whether others are also involved in the commission of the offence. In case the petitioner is released on bail, she can influence the witnesses. A prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also complainant, who appeared in person and have also gone through the record. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the case was registered in March, 2011 but thereafter the petitioner had been evading her arrest as well as her joining in the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainant has lodged the complaint only to harass the petitioner. It has been stated that at the instance of the petitioner some complaints were also lodged against the complainant. 7. The complainant has submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated huge government money and the bill in question is forged. It has come on record that the petitioner is involved atleast in four FIRs in the recent past. The investigating agency has taken the 4 stand that the bill in question has not been issued from the concerned firm i.e. Shri Shyam Timber Industries nor necessary documents of transportation of the timber were annexed with the bill. The bill has not been entered in the record of the Forest Barrier at Dhalli where in normal course it should have been entered. 8. The investigating agency has taken the stand that the petitioner is taking shifting stands regarding the bill and she is not coming out with true facts. The possibility cannot be ruled out that timber used in the construction of Panchayat Bhawan has origin from the illicit felling. It has been stated that in order to find out the truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It has been submitted by the complainant that when the petitioner found that her bail application would be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge at that stage petitioner withdrew the anticipatory bail application and filed another bail application in this Court. 9. I have gone through the order dated 16.11.2011 of the Sessions Judge, Shimla vide which the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner has not shown any reason why the bail application was withdrawn by her which she filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimla for granting the bail. In view of serious allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is already facing four FIRs in the recent past, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 5 10. 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. November 28, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.