Cr.M.P.(M) No. 388 of 2009. 28.5.2009 Present: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 27 of 2009 dated 19.4.2009 registered at Police Station, Brow, District Kullu under Sections 379, 202, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. The recoveries have already been effected. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar and the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur have rejected the applications filed before them vide orders dated 30.4.2009 and 16.5.2009 respectively under the wrong observation of repeated theft of vehicles and its accessories. He further submits that his client will abide by all such terms and conditions which the Hon’ble Court may impose upon him. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the applications filed for the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner have been rejected by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Rampur Bushehar and learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur. The recoveries have been effected in the case at the instance of accused persons. He further submits that another case of theft has also been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Dhalli bearing FIR No. 134 of 2007 dated 21.6.2007. Thus, he has strongly opposed the bail application. I have heard the parties and have perused the status report. The plea raised by Mr. M.L. Brakta that his client has been falsely implicated merits rejection. The recoveries have been effected at the instance of his client under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused is also involved in theft of another vehicle and accessories and FIR No. 134 of 2007 has been registered at Police Station, Dhalli. The petitioner, Pramod Chauhan and Ashok Kumar, the other co-accused are friends as is evident from the record. Consequently, in view of the petitioner having been involved in the commission of crime of theft repeatedly, he has not made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and the same shall not be treated as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 28, 2009. (cr)