IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 302 of 2009 Date of decision: May 11, 2009. Sandeep Chauhan …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.S.Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate Genral. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 116/07 dated 12.6.2007, registered at Police Station, Barmana, under Sections 342, 328, 392, 411, 34 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner earlier had filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 725 of 2008, which was dismissed by this court on 25.7.2008. He then filed Cr.M.P)M) No. 891 of 2008, which was also dismissed by this court on 26.9.2008. The petitioner thereafter filed bail application No. 317/08, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 16.1.2009. 3. The petitioner has filed the present bail application on the grounds that investigation in the case is complete, challan has Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… been presented in the court. The co-accused Kimti Lal has been released on bail, but another co-accused Manish, who is facing about 12 cases in Delhi is not appearing in the trial court which is causing delay. It has been submitted that the petitioner surrendered on 1.7.2008 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in a serious case alongwith his co-accused Manish and Kimti Lal. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the allegations against Kimti Lal in the case are of different nature. He has been booked under Section 411 IPC, whereas Manish and petitioner are the main accused for committing robbery etc. in the shop of Surinder Kumar Chaudhary. He has submitted that there is no change of circumstance. Manish accused is in custody in several cases in Delhi and he is being produced in the trial court after making arrangements of his production from Delhi. The next date in the court below is fixed on 29.5.2009. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In addition to three bail applications referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has come on record that on 7.7.2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur had rejected another bail application of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge on 16.1.2009 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that there is no change of circumstance after the …3… dismissal of his earlier bail applications. The petitioner has alleged that Manish is not appearing in the court below and after 6.12.2008 to 20.4.2009, he had put in appearance once or twice in the court below. The reasons for not putting up appearance by Manish in the trial court have not been given. In these circumstances, it cannot be said to be a change of circumstance. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, hence, the application is rejected. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. May 11, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.