IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 743 of 2008. Date of decision: July 29, 2008. Satinder Kumar Jain …..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: Mr Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 27 registered on 22.9.2006 at Police Station, Kaza under Sections 454, 380, 120-B, 34 and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The status report has been filed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.7.2006 petitioner, Dr.Mohan Lal Verma and their three companions Lokesh Dutt Sharma, Dinesh and Dharmender at Fuhar Hotel, Nalagarh met Ravi Kumar etc. accused. Karam Singh accused had kept at Nalagarh with Anil Kumar accused one stone wrapped in carbon Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… paper and black cloth. Karam Singh had been telling that the said stone was precious. He wanted to have a deal of this stone with petitioner, Dr.Mohan Lal Verma accused for Rs.5 lacs but later on agreed to sell the said stone for Rs.50,000 without showing the stone. The petitioner, Dr.Mohan Lal Verma, Lokesh Dutt Sharma with their companions left for Delhi. The petitioner, Dr.Verma and Lokesh Dutt Sharma instigated other co-accused to arrange a particular type of stone idol for which they offered to pay huge amount. On their instigation Rajesh Bisht and his companions after hatching conspiracy committed theft of two ancient stone idols from the Kunzam Mata temple on 22.9.2006 and a case was registered. Those idols were recovered from their Tavera vehicle HP-03B-2727. The accused Mohan Lal Verma and petitioner were arrested on 30.9.2006. The petitioner was taken for medical examination at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khhichripur Delhi and he was found to be suffering from heart ailment. The fitness certificate of the petitioner was obtained on 4.10.2006 and he was produced in a Delhi Court. The petitioner was granted transit bail and directed to appear on 13.10.2006 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reckong Peo. The petitioner on 8.10.2006 obtained anticipatory bail from learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar but later on the bail application was dismissed. The petitioner then filed anticipatory bail application in this Court which was rejected on 2.11.2006. The petitioner jumped the bail and had gone underground. The petitioner was arrested from Preet Vihar Delhi on 3.3.2008. A supplementary challan against the petitioner was submitted in the Court of learned …3… Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the trial is in progress. The other accused are in judicial custody. The petitioner, Dr.Verma and Lokesh Dutt Sharma at Nalagarh by offering money instigated other accused, who on instigation and entering into conspiracy committed theft of ancient idols in Kunzam Mata Temple. The petitioner and Lokesh Dutt Sharma remained in contact with each other from 4.8.2006 to 19.8.2006. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the prosecution evidence in the supplementary challan against the petitioner is almost complete and now two witnesses, namely, Inderjeet and Daljeet are left to be examined in the case on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. In the prosecution evidence recorded till now the involvement of the petitioner has not been established. The case is being repeatedly adjourned for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that prosecution has taken a false stand that petitioner had gone underground in order to avoid his arrest. In fact, the petitioner was available at Delhi and till he was arrested in March 2008 nobody questioned the petitioner. He has submitted that in fact the name of the petitioner initially was shown in Column No.2 of the challan and he was not an accused. The petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and he is not being given proper treatment. He has submitted that in absence of proper medical aid, the petitioner’s life is in danger. The learned counsel for …4… the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court, if he is released on bail. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to statements of many prosecution witnesses recorded in the supplementary challan which was filed against the petitioner in order to bring home his point that the petitioner has committed no offence even as per the evidence which has come on record till now. 4. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I am purposely not commenting upon the evidence which has been recorded in the case so that prejudice is not caused to either side. The petitioner earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No.640 of 2006 which was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.11.2006. In the order dated 2.11.2006 it has been observed that there is some material to show that the petitioner had met the other accused. Statement of Rajesh accused indicates that the petitioner had held out promises to some of the co-accused that large amount of money could be given to them if they bring rare idols / antiques. The petitioner also filed bail application No.32 of 2008 which was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 27.3.2008. The bail application of Sanjay alias Sanju 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. …5… 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." 5. In the bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.631 of 2008 filed by Lokesh Dutt Sharma one of the contentions was that the involvement of petitioner in that case was not established from the prosecution evidence which was recorded but this Court did not examine the merits of the case so that no prejudice is caused to any side and dismissed the bail application. The bail application of Sanjay alias Sanju was also dismissed on 6.7.2007 without examining the merits of the case even though number of witnesses were examined in the case. There are serious allegations against the petitioner, as per the prosecution the petitioner was arrested on 30.9.2006 and he was granted transit bail by a Delhi Court with a direction to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reckong Peo on 13.10.2006 but petitioner filed bail application in the Sessions Court at Rampur which was dismissed. The second bail application of the petitioner which he filed in this Court was rejected on 2.11.2006. The petitioner thereafter jumped the bail and had gone underground. He could be arrested only on 3.3.2008. 6. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail, hence, the application is rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not keeping well, rather the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailment. In view of this, the …6… respondent is directed to get the petitioner medically examined and arrange his treatment in the appropriate hospital and in case the petitioner is required to be transported from one place to another for medical treatment then the petitioner should be transported in accordance with the medical advice. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. July 29, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (soni) Judge.