Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 670 (HP)

Neema Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-05-29

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail arises out of case FIR No. 8/20 11, dated 31.03.2011, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner in order to upgrade his category from “B” to “A” Class contractor with HPPWD had dishonestly procured fictitious documents and produced these documents as genuine before the concerned authorities to get himself enlisted as Class-A contractor. From the record of the case, I find that the FIR has been lodged as back as on 31.03.2011 and the investigation is practically complete. The evidence required in this case has almost been collected and what little remains in the custody of the Government Departments, it is submitted by Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General that custody of the petitioner is required for his specimen signatures. 3. Notice of this petition was issued to the State of Himachal Pradesh. I have gone through the records of the case. This Court more than on one occasion has clearly held that to procure signatures of the accused, his custody is not required. The State is not in a position to satisfy me as to why and on what basis the custodial interrogation of the petitioner at this stage is required, particularly, when the FIR No.8/2011, at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla, was registered as far as back on 31.03.2011. 4. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case where bail ought to have been granted to the petitioner. 5. 4. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case where bail ought to have been granted to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the present bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. FIR No. 8/2011, dated 31.03.2011, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shimla, with the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when and if required. (iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 6. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be read or referred to at the time of trial or at any later stage.