IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.208 of 2008 Decided on: March 31, 2008. Anoop Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.150 dated 17.9.2007, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 395, 458, 380, 342, 411 and 120-B I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.9.2007, Sanjay Kumar reported at Police Station Baddi that he is working as security guard for the last about 4 months in International Company, Nandpur. He was on duty from the evening of 16.9.2007 till 7 O’Clock next day. The second security guard in the shift was Rajesh Kumar. At about 1.30 a.m. 3 – 4 persons entered the factory and asked from him how many persons Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… were in the factory on duty. He told that only two persons were on duty. They demanded factory keys from him, he told them that he was not having factory keys. On this, they caught hold him from neck and gave him beatings with kick and fist blows and they also torn his shirt. In the meantime, Rajesh Kumar also came there. The trespassers locked both of them in the factory bath room which is adjacent to their place of duty. They heard the sound of a vehicle entering the factory, many persons were in the vehicle. After about half an hour, the vehicle came out of the factory. At about 4.30 a.m. a tea seller from near the factory came and he called them. On this, he requested the tea seller to open the bath room from outside and then they came out. On coming out of the bath room, he saw the shutter of the main gate was up and the lock was not at its place. He gave the information of the incident to his Field Officer. On this, F.I.R. was registered. 3. On 3.11.2007 Rahul, Anoop Kumar petitioner and others, accused in F.I.R. No.169 dated 29.10.2007 under Sections 395f, 458, 380, 342, 411 IPC registered at Police Station, Baddi, were arrested. On interrogation, they disclosed that they had committed robbery in the present case along with their other companions. They have also disclosed that they have sold the case property in the present case to Dharam Pal scrap dealer at Chandigarh. The petitioner and others were then transferred to the present case and were arrested in the present case. On 14.11.2007, accused Kuldeep made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and identified the place of Dharam Pal, scrap dealer at Chandigarh …3… and Dharam Pal was arrested on 17.11.2007. The case property weighing 3.30 quintals aluminium was recovered from Dharam Pal but the remaining aluminium was sold by Dharam Pal to one Santa at Delhi, whereabouts of that Santa are not known to Dharam Pal. Only 13 accused have been arrested till now in the case and remaining 6 – 7 accused are still to be arrested. The petitioner / accused Anoop Kumar remained with his companions from beginning to end for committing the offence. They have stolen 10 quintals aluminium valuing about Rs.6.40 lacks which was sold to Dharam Pal for Rs.72,000. They distributed the loot amount amongst themselves. A big gang is operating in Baddi area for committing robberies. They have committed robberies of crores of rupees. The challan has been presented in the Court on 8.2.2008. The accused, who have absconded, are being searched. The petitioner in addition to the present case is involved in F.I.R. No.153 dated 20.9.2007 under Sections 395, 458, 380, 342, 411, 120-B IPC and F.I.R. No.169 dated 29.10.2007 under Sections 395, 458, 380, 342, 411, 120-B IPC. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner has been implicated in the case merely on suspicion. The petitioner is innocent. The petitioner is resident of Malak Majra, Nalagarh and in case he is released on bail he will comply with the terms of the bail nor he will jump the bail. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the petitioner and other co- accused have committed decoities in the area. The petitioner is a …4… member of core group which is involved in decoities in Punjab, Haryana, Uttrakhand. The petitioner has mobile repairing shop in the building owned by his father and in that building there is a liquor Ahata which has been given to some liquor contractor. It is the case of the prosecution that it has come in investigation that the accused in the three decoities used to assemble in the said Ahata. The earlier bail petitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. There is no change of circumstance. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioner is released on bail he will again commit similar offence. Only 13 accused have been arrested and 6 – 7 accused have not yet been arrested as they have absconded. The petitioner is involved in serious offence not only in F.I.R. No.150/2007 but also in F.I.R. No.153 of 2007, F.I.R. No.169 of 2007 all registered at Police Station, Baddi. There are allegations against the petitioner that he is the member of core group who have committed decoities in the adjoining States also. The bail application of co-accused Rajinder has been rejected on 17.3.2008 by this Court. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5.3.2008. The challan has been presented in the Court on 18.2.2008. There is no change of circumstance and no case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 31, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)