Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.197 of 2010. Dated of Decision: April 6, 2010. Lakhbir Singh . …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P . ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Add. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.95/09 dated 16.3.2009, registered in Police Station Nurpur, for committing dacoity, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. He was denied bail by the Court of Sessions, as such, the instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred. In short, the prosecution case is that on 15.3.2009, Raj Kumar was the driver of Truck (Tralla) bearing registration No.HP- 68-4959 and Tilak Raj was the Cleaner. Alongwith the said truck, they proceeded towards village Tipperi, but they stopped the said truck at 9.45 p.m. and Raj Kumar Driver went to take the food. Tilak Raj, Cleaner was waiting for him near the vehicle. In the meantime, one Maruti Car and Esteem Car came there, rounded the truck. 5-6 persons alighted there from. They informed Tilak Raj that they want 2 to toe their vehicle with the truck. On this Tilak Raj told them that the driver had gone to take food, but one of the accused at the point of Revolver, dragged Tilak Raj and made to sit him on the rear seat of the truck, with a direction not to make a noise and other accused drove off the said truck on the old road leading to Damtal. Maruti Car and Esteem Car both, were taken back. After some distance, truck was stopped. The hands and legs of Tilak Raj were tied with a towel and made him to sit on the road and commanded him not to move anywhere, lest he would be killed by their man. His Mobile phone and Rs.530/- were taken by them. The said truck was driven away towards Bhadroa side on the main road. After sometime, he got relieved himself and ran away. He reached toll tax barrier. He narrated the incident to one Bantu, an employee at toll tax barrier; then on his phone informed Sanjeev Kumar. Tilak Raj reported the matter to police and a case in terms of FIR No.95/09 was registered. Police proceeded to the spot and they took into possession a towel (parna) from the spot, which was used to tie the complainant. Tony accused was arrested by Punjab police in some case. During his interrogation, he revealed the facts of this case. Production warrants were obtained and his custody was transferred to this case. He was interrogated on 5.9.2009. During interrogation, he got recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and identified the place from where they had committed the theft of the said truck with the assistance of other accused-persons including the petitioner. Purshottam Lal alias Tona was arrested on 11.9.2009. He was also interrogated. The police, which lent assurance to them about the 3 involvement of other accused persons as earlier stated by accused Tony. Police went in search of other accused. On 30.9.2009, they got a secret information that Manoj Kumar alias Pintu alongwith 2-3 persons including petitioner Lakhbir Singh were travelling in Indica Car No.JK-02A-9779. Police intercepted the said car at toll tax barrier Bhadroa. When it was checked, it was found being driven by Manoj Kumar co-accused. He was over-powered and on his search, the police recovered a revolver alongwith five live cartridges. He could not produce any licence, as such, it was sealed on the spot and taken into possession and a case under Arms Act was also registered. During their interrogation, police came to know that the aforesaid persons were the member of inter-state gang. They were also involved earlier in such type of dacoities. They made the disclosure statements that the vehicle in question was sold by them in Assam and at their instance, the truck in question was recovered on 7th October, 2009 from the possession of one Toyab Khan. Toyab Khan was arrested under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, but later granted bail by the Court of Sessions. Co-accused Ram Lubhaya was arrested in FIR No.176/08 in Police Station Indora. His custody was also transferred in this case. The identification parade was got conducted before the Magistrate. He was identified by the complainant. All the accused persons are lodging in the judicial lock- up and the challan against them has been presented in the court for their trial, under the aforesaid sections. Shri M.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Shri N.S. Chandel, Advocate, has vehemently argued 4 that there is no evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is also argued that on 30.9.2009, the petitioner was arrested, but nothing was recovered from him. It was only Manoj Kumar, who was driving the Indica Car and also alleged to have been possessing unlicenced Arm and Ammunition and further that the truck in question, which is alleged to have been recovered from Assam, could not be connected with the theft truck and no scientific investigation with respect to alleged erasing of engine and chassis numbers was conducted to substantiate their case. The receipt of the tyres of the truck in question could also not be connected with the tyres of said truck. He also argued that in these circumstances, the petitioner has a case for bail. Contra, Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that at this stage, no meticulous examination of evidence is to be done to see whether the case would end in the conviction or acquittal. According to him, prima- facie there is evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. According to him, the petitioner had made disclosure statement pursuant to which, the truck in question was recovered from Assam. Its Chassis and Engine numbers were erased and some other numbers were embossed. Further, the petitioner was found in the company of Manoj Kumar, who is alleged to have been found in possession of unlicenced weapon and the petitioner has criminal history of committing dacoity. He was also involved in a case FIR Nos.176/08 and 251/08 under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Indora and thus the petitioner is stated to be a member of inter-state Gang. Therefore, objected to his bail. 5 I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the police investigation record. It is well settled by now that the material collected in the investigation is not to be meticulously evaluated at this stage, however, it is left open to be done at the trial stage. Prima-facie, there is an evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. Apart from the case in hand, there is one case registered against the petitioner in Punjab under Section 399, 402, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence committed is serious in nature, at the same time keeping in view the alleged criminal history of the petitioner, it is not in the interest of society to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is dismissed. Any observation made in this order is strictly for deciding the instant bail application and it shall not affect the merits of the main case. Record of the police is returned to the learned Additional Advocate General. Petition stands disposed of. April 6, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.