MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above captioned bail petitions have been filed by the bail petitioners named herein above on the apprehension that they would be arrested in case FIR No. 9/16 dtd. 3/4/2016, registered at Police Station State CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P., under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC, Sec. 13 (I) (D) (II) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 5 and 7 of HP Prevention of Specific Corruption Practices Act. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General after having gone through the averments contained in the petitions contends that as per own case set-up by all the bail petitioners, they came to be engaged for guarding the premises of Indian Technomac company after lodging of aforesaid FIR and at no point of time, these all petitioners remained associated in any capacity with the affairs of the company named herein above and as such, it is not understood that under what apprehension, bail petitioners are apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR.

(3.) Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners fairly states before this Court that all the bail petitioners are daily waged/regular employees of excise department and were deputed by the department to guard the premises of company, which was sealed after lodging of aforesaid FIR, but since certain material came to be stolen subsequently from the premises of the company, bail petitioners are constantly threatened that they would be arrested and as such, they were compelled to file the instant proceedings.