IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.647 of 2008. Date of decision: 16.7.2008 Anil Kumar ………. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate and Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 395, 458, 380, 342,411 and 120-B IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of written complaint dated 29.10.2007 of Om Parkash Manager, Luminous Power Technology, Private Ltd. Malpur, Baddi, the case was registered. It has been alleged that in the intervening night on 28/29.10.2007 at about 12 mid night some miscreants armed with weapons by jumping the wall of the factory entered the factory premises and they overpowered the three security guards at the main gate of the factory. They Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 were given beatings and were locked in rooms. They gave beatings to other factory employees who were sleeping in the canteen and they were also locked in the rooms. Thereafter they broke open the locks of the main gate of the factory. They broke open other locks and took away mainly copper wires, semi built transformers and batteries in a vehicle. 3. It has come in investigation that in the intervening night of 28/29.10.2007 about 16/17 persons entered into the factory premises, they gave beatings to 11 factory employees including 3 security guards and locked them in the rooms. They took away copper wire rolls, semi built transformers and batteries worth Rs.54,41,120/- by committing dacoity. On 3.11.2007 Rahul accused was arrested who on interrogation disclosed the names of other accused persons including petitioner and told that stolen copper wire rolls, batteries and semi built transformers were taken away in truck No.HR-48-1759 and sold to one Pawan scrap dealer. Rahul accused got recorded his disclosure statement on 3.11.2007 and on that Pawan scrap dealer was arrested who told that he had sold the material to scrap dealer Ashu Sood at Chandigarh. On 3.11.2007 Ashu Sood was arrested who told that he sold the material to Akash Aggarwal scrap dealer at Panchkula. Some of the accused were arrested on 3.11.2007. Akash Aggarwal scrap dealer was arrested on 3.11.2007 who told that he had sold the material to Vinod Kumar in Delhi. Vinod Kumar scrap dealer was not found in his shop, his friend Ramesh Kumar told that in absence of Vinod Kumar he had kept 17 bags containing approximately 19 quintals of copper wire, which were recovered. On 10.11.2007 Ashu Sood got recovered from his house two bags. Pawan scrap dealer on 12.11.2007 from his house got recovered one battery. It has been submitted that 16 accused till now have been arrested. On 30.1.2008 challan has been submitted in the Court. Out of 16 accused 4 accused namely Pawan Bansal, Ashu Sood, Akash 3 Aggarwal scrap dealers and Rajinder Singh are on bail and 12 accused are in judicial custody. Some accused till now have not been arrested as they have absconded. On 19.6.2008 Sunil Kumar accused was arrested. He is also in judicial custody. Pawan Bansal scrap dealer after obtaining bail has absconded and he is not appearing in the Court. The accused Anil Kumar petitioner right from the very beginning is involved in the commission of the offence in the present case. The bail application earlier filed by petitioner has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 5.3.2008. The bail application of Raj Kumar accused has been dismissed by the High Court on 20.6.2008. The co-accused of the petitioner are involved in 3 to 8 cases and they have stolen property worth crores of rupees from the industrial area. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is complete and custody of the petitioner is not required for indefinite period. The trial of the accused is not likely to be concluded at an early date. It has been submitted that some of the accused have been released on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to bail. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in terms of the direction of this Court. 5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General who has submitted that the petitioner and other accused have created terror in the industrial estate by committing dacoities. The petitioner is a member of organized gang. The petitioner and his co-accused have looted properties worth crores of rupees in different dacoities committed by them in the industrial area. The involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence is right from the very beginning which has been established in the investigation. The challan has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner has committed serious offence. It is not in the public 4 interest to release the petitioner on bail in the present case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he is involved in the case right from the very beginning. The petitioner is a member of organized gang who has committed dacoities in the industrial area. In the present case property worth Rs.54,41,120/- is involved. The investigating agency has made some recovery. The part attributed to the petitioner is not same as attributed to the accused who have been released on bail. It has been submitted that even Pawan Kumar scrap dealer who has been released on bail has jumped the bail. It has been submitted that this Court on 20.6.2008 has rejected the bail application of Raj Kumar accused. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. Hence petition dismissed. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge July 16, 2008 (sks)