IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 631 of 2008. Date of decision: July 17, 2008. Lokesh Dutt Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed this application for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 27 registered on 22.9.2006 at Police Station, Kaza under Sections 454, 381, 120-B, 34 and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasuries Act, 1972. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on the statement of Chorup, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., FIR was registered at Police Station, Kaza on 22.9.2006. The complainant in his statement has stated that he is resident of Lossar and Pujari of Kunzam Mata temple, Kunzam Pass. He remains in the temple during day time and leaves to his place Lossar in the evening. The temple always remains open. On 22.9.2006, at about Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 7.00 a.m. he came to the temple and worshipped the deity. Later on he noticed a red colour vehicle parked on the road near the temple and two boys were lying on the ground. One boy was wearing red colour sweater, he can recognize him. The complainant for purchasing some articles went out at about 10.00 a.m. and at that time those two boys and red colour vehicle were very much there. The complainant returned to temple at about 12.30 noon, he again went inside the temple and noticed that idols which were kept inside the temple were missing. Both idols of black stone were in the temple from ancient times. One idol was of Kali and on the other idol, there was mark of foot believed to be the foot of Mata. Both the idols in the market must be having value in lacs. He searched the idols, but he could not locate. The complainant suspected that two boys who were lying on the ground had committed the theft of the idols. On the statement of complainant, FIR was registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that main challan in the case was presented on 18.11.2006. The petitioner was arrested on 7.12.2006 and supplementary challan against the petitioner was submitted in the court on 2.2.2007. The prosecution evidence against the petitioner and other accused except Satinder Jain has been completed. It has been submitted that accused Satinder Jain was arrested on 3.3.2008 and supplementary challan against him was filed on 12.3.2008 and prosecution evidence against him is in progress. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence has not been established from the prosecution …3… evidence, which has been recorded. The prosecution evidence against the petitioner is over, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner will influence the prosecution witnesses, if released on bail. It has been submitted that petitioner was arrested on 7.12.2006 and since then he is in custody. The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 6.6.2008 by passing a cryptic order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the prosecution evidence against Satinder Jain accused is in progress and it cannot be said that how much time the prosecution will take for completing evidence against Satinder Jain. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record certified copies of statements of some of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru 2005 (11) SCC 600, on the point of value of conversation on mobile phone. He has submitted that in view of material on record, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that involvement of the petitioner has been established during investigation as well as in evidence which has come on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has specifically referred the statement of PW 31 Inderjit. He has submitted that the appreciation of evidence while considering bail application is not possible and it is the duty of learned trial court to appreciate the evidence while considering the case on merits. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the …4… petitioner is not entitled to bail and he prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is nothing on record establishing the involvement of the petitioner in the case. I have considered the material on record and I am purposely not commenting on the prosecution evidence so that no prejudice is caused to any side. However, the name of the petitioner has come in the evidence. The allegations of the prosecution are that petitioner is an instigator and conspirator for commission of the offence. The prosecution evidence has been completed against the petitioner but this in itself is no ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. The bail application of the petitioner moved by him earlier was dismissed on 10.1.2007, which has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 6.6.2008. The bail application of Sanjay alias Sanju being Cr.M.P(M) No. 440 of 2007 was dismissed by a learned Single Jude of this court on 6.7.2007 with the following observations: “The trial has commenced and a number of witnesses have been examined. Under these circumstances, I do not think it will be appropriate to examine the merits of the case, at this stage. However, looking to the nature of the offence, in the light of the fact that the incidence of thefts of idols/ antiques in the remote area of the State has arisen very high in the recent past, the prayer of the applicant is rejected." 6. The State (NCT of Delhi) case (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of …5… the case is not applicable in the case in hand. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was decided by the Hon’ble apex court on merits but the present petition has been filed for granting bail. No case for bail is made out. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. July 17, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.