LAKHJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, under section 438 Cr.P.C., for issuing direction to the police of Police Station (Vigilance), Kangra at Dharamshala to release the petitioners on bail in FIR No. 2 of 2014 dated 17.2.2014, registered under section 403, 411 IPC and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution story in brief is that while police party was on patrol duty on 17.2.2014, then at about 12.15 p.m., they received a secret message that one Karam Deen was constructing his residential house and was using government cement in the construction thereof and in case the premises are raided at once, the cement bags can be seized. Since the courts are situated at a distance, this would delay the process of procuring the warrants. Therefore, raiding party was constituted by associating the Uppardhan Suresh Kumar and one Pardeep Singh, Ward Panch Gram Panchayat, Badarpur and when the raid was conducted, it was found 160 bags of cement with the stamp "not for sale H.P. Govt." were recovered. These bags were handed over to Junior Engineer of Sub Division, Sansarpur Tarace on sapurdari.

(2.) SO far as aforesaid Karam Deen accused is concerned, he was ordered to be released by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamashala vide order dated 4.3.2014. On the basis of the investigation, it was revealed that cement of government supply had been released to the bail petitioner Varinder Singh, who is a government contractor while the other bail petitioner Lakhjeet Singh is working as driver. It has been stated by the prosecution that matter is still pending investigation, as this cement which was meant for Shah Nahar project has been illegally sold in open market by petitioner Varinder Singh through his driver Lakhjeet Singh. It has been alleged that without custodial interrogation, the bail petitioners would not disclose the truth.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that co -accused Karam Deen has already been ordered to be released on bail, the allegations against the said accused are in no manner different from the accusation against the present petitioners. That apart, the entire evidenced is based on documentary evidence, which otherwise is either in the custody of the police or in the custody of government/public departments, to which ordinarily the accused may not have any access. Merely because the prosecution claims that they require the custody of the petitioners for further interrogation cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioners. Both the petitioners have already joined the investigation pursuant to directions issued by this court on 6.3.2014 and thereafter on 14.3.2014. I am convinced that no case is made out for custodial interrogation against the petitioners, who are already on bail pursuant to orders passed by this court on 6.3.2014.