RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C. in case FIR No. 70 of 2018, dated 28.3.2018 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) On the basis of status report and record, it is pointed out by learned Deputy Advocate General that there are two documents available on record against the petitioner, which indicates his involvement in registration of two sale deeds bearing Nos. 49 and 50, dated 19.1.2007 and attestation of mutation thereof on 19.4.2007. Perusal of record indicates that on the sale deed, photograph of Tehsildar i.e. petitioner is original, whereas the photographs of the persons including vendor and vendee, purported to be present on that date, have been inserted later on by using Photoshop or any other technique.

(3.) On last date of hearing, time was sought on behalf of the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit along with complaint filed by him with the Superintendent of Police, Distrit Kangra at Dharamshala against the registration of these two sale deeds, bearing No. 49 and 50. Supplementary affidavit stands filed along with copy of complaint. It is stated by the petitioner, in the supplementary affidavit, that during his posting from 24.4.2003 to 1.11.2007 as Tehsildar Indora, he had found irregularities in the office of Assistant Collector 1st Grade and on his complaint, about ten cases of illegal sale of land were detected and out of these in 7-8 cases proceedings under Sec. 118 of H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated and during that period he had also issued warnings to the staff working in his office and some departmental action was also taken against some officials, due to which he was not having good relations with them.