O R D E R

Notice. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

By way of this petition filed, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 41 of 2022, dated 05.05.2022, registered under Section 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has recently come to know that one of the accused in the above mentioned FIR made a statement before the investigating agency about payment of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner for clearing his name from the FIR. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner happens to be a social activist and a responsible member of the society and has been unnecessarily dragged in the matter. He further submitted that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the commission of the offence alleged and if granted anticipatory bail, hewill participate in the course of investigation and shall render all necessary help to the investigating agency. Learned counsel has also submitted that levelling of the allegations against the petitioner is with the intent to tarnish his image and to destroy his political career. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, decided on 02.07.2014 as also the order which has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Munawar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 62/2021, decided on 05.02.2021 and has prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, because according to the petitioner, even if the allegations which stood levelled against him are taken to their logical conclusion, then at the most, the petitioner may be held guilty of offences for which maximum punishment is not less than 7 years and further that the petitioner has only received a notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. till date.

3. The bail petition is opposed by learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that the FIR in issue has been lodged with regard to the leak of the question paper in the process of recruitment of Constables in the Police Department of the State which in fact was a big scam and which had resulted in the cancellation of the entire process recently. He further submitted that as per his instructions, there is involvement of the petitioner alongwith other accused and otherwise also, in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, then serious prejudice shall be caused to the investigating agency, as taking into consideration the gravity of the issue, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary and as the investigation was at the initial stage, therefore, also the prayer so made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail be rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being relied upon by the petitioner.

5. It is not in dispute that the FIR in which the petitioner is praying for anticipatory bail relates to leak of the paper pertaining to the recruitment of Constables in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The offence alleged has in fact resulted in the cancellation of the process which was so undertaken by the concerned Department for the recruitment of the Constables. Similar applications filed by the other accused before this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., have earlier been rejected by this Court primarily on the ground that the allegations were serious in nature and further the investigation was at its initial stage.

6. In the present petition, in Para-3 thereof, the averments which have been made by the petitioner are to the effect that he has