IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 930 and 932 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 930 of 2011 Raj Kumar …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 932 of 2011 Raj 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(s) : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 930 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 932 of 2011 both having been filed by the same person under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Cr.MP(M) No. 930 of 2011 has been filed in FIR No. 40 of 2011 dated 27.2.2011 registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 379, 414 and 212 IPC. Cr.MP(M) No. 932 of 2011 has been filed in FIR No. 172 of 2010 dated 14.12.2010 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 379, 414 and 212 IPC. 2. In Cr.MP(M) No. 930 of 2011 it has been stated that petitioner had filed a bail application for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 40 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Solan on 13.10.2011 on the ground that petitioner is involved in similar offence in FIR No. 172 of 2010. It has also been observed that petitioner has escaped from the custody for which another FIR No. 89 of 2011 has been registered at Police Station, Baddi. 3. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is in custody since long. The Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. The statements of witnesses recorded so far do not reveal involvement of the petitioner for the commission of offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the written complaint of Kuldeep Singh regarding the theft of his motorcycle No.HP-12-D-1227 which was parked by him inside the gate of his house on 26.2.2011 at 10.00 p.m. He found that some other motorcycles were also stolen from the locality. The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 172 of 2010 and was transferred on 6.4.2011 in the present case, he and Viresh Kumar accused absconded on 7.4.2011. A separate FIR No.89 of 2011 was registered and both of them were arrested. In the present case Hori Lal and Babloo were arrested but they have been released on bail. Viresh Kumar is juvenile. It has been stated that petitioner is habitual offender, in case he is released on bail he can terrorise the prosecution witnesses. Prayer has been made for rejection of his bail application. 5. In Cr.MP(M) No. 932 of 2011 it has been stated that petitioner had filed bail application in FIR No. 172 of 2010 which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Solan on 13.10.2011 on the ground that the petitioner is involved in similar offence in FIR No. 40 of 2011. He escaped from the custody for which another FIR No. 89 of 2011 has been registered at Police Station, Baddi. It has been stated that Sessions Judge has erred in dismissing the bail application of the petitioner. The statements of the witnesses recorded so far in the case do not reveal the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of offence. The petitioner is innocent and is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The status report has been filed and it has been stated that FIR No. 172 of 2010 has been registered on the written complaint of Vinod Kumar regarding the theft of his motor cycle No.HP-12C- 5937. It has been stated that the petitioner was arrested on 3.4.2011, during interrogation the petitioner disclosed that he and his co- accused have stolen five motorcycles from Baddi area. The other accused Hori Lal has been released on bail. Similarly Viresh Kumar accused has been released on bail by Juvenile Court. The petitioner was transferred as accused in FIR No. 40 of 2011 and he absconded after breaking open the lock. A separate case has been registered against the petitioner being FIR No. 89 of 2011. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record in both the cases. In FIR No. 172 of 2010 there are three accused namely Raj Kumar, Viresh Kumar and Hori Lal. In FIR No. 40 of 2011 there are four accused namely petitioner (Raj Kumar), Babloo, Viresh Kumar and Hori Lal. In both the cases, all the accused have been released on bail except the petitioner Raj Kumar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Nanha vs. State of U.P. 1993 Cri.L.J.938 on the point that accused is entitled to bail on the ground of parity if other accused have been released on bail. Ram Narayan Singh and another vs. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 55 has been relied on the ground that accused in custody for 9 months is entitled to bail. Dharamveer vs. State of Rajasthan JT 2000 (10) SC 318 has been relied that when two accused have been released on bail the third accused whose case was not worse than the case of first accused was also granted bail. 8. In the present case facts are entirely different. It has emerged from the record that petitioner is habitual offender. He was granted bail but escaped and for that FIR No. 89 of 2011 has been registered at Police Station, Baddi. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take benefit of parity inasmuch as the petitioner absconded while he was in custody. The possibility cannot be ruled out that if he is released on bail, it will not be possible to trace him out. In Ram Narayan Singh and another (supra) the High Court ordered that if the trial does not commence within six months, the accused in that case can renew the prayer for bail. In the present case, the trial has already commenced and some prosecution evidence has been recorded. The petitioner is habitual offender. 9. The Sessions Judge has already rejected the bail applications of the petitioner in FIR No. 40 of 2011 and FIR No. 172 of 2010. There is no change of circumstance. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail in both the cases. Hence, both the petitions are rejected. 10. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petitions only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 23, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.