IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.938 of 2008. Date of decision: 7.11.2008. Rajinder Singh ………. 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. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.153 registered on 20.9.2007 at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 395,458,380,342,and 120-B IPC. The status report dated 23.10.2008 has been placed on record. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case is that Noratan Nai, worker Rajnigandha Pvt. Limited, Baddi had submitted a written complaint at Police Station, Baddi that in the intervening night on 19/20.9.2007 he and his companions were sleeping in a factory room. At about 1.30 AM 7/8 persons trespassed into their room and placed knives on their necks. They demanded keys of the factory store but out Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 of fear they did not reply and therefore, those persons gave beatings to them and tied their hands etc. Those persons took out keys from the drawer, they brought a vehicle inside the factory and loaded 10 bundles of copper in the vehicle. They also took away Rs.32,000/- in cash, two mobile phones and Tata Sky Digital Camera. After they left, Sambhu cook and Harinarayan freed them. They took away motorcycle key of the complainant from his pocket. The complainant disclosed this fact on telephone to the Manager from adjoining factory . On this case was registered. 3. After the registration of the case, the police came into action and arrested the petitioner and others. The recoveries were made and on completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court on 18.2.2008. It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in 5 similar cases. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected on 17.3.2008 by this Court on merits There is no change of circumstance after 17.3.2008, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except in FIR No.150 of 2007 and FIR No.153 of 2007, the petitioner has been granted bail in other cases. The petitioner earlier filed bail application for releasing him on bail which was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan. The bail application of the petitioner was also rejected by this Court on 17.3.2008. Thereafter petitioner filed another bail application which was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan on 27.8.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after filing of the challan the trial of the case is being delayed and on this ground the petitioner is entitled to bail. The petitioner is involved in five 3 cases including the present case arising out of FIR No.153 of 2007. The case against the petitioner is serious, his bail has already been rejected on merits on 17.3.2008. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for releasing him on bail at this stage, accordingly, petition is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial of the petitioner in the case is being delayed without any fault on the part of petitioner. The case against petitioner is serious but this is no ground to delay the trial. In these circumstances, it is hoped the trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide the case expeditiously. The liberty is granted to petitioner to file bail application, in case, the trial of the case is not completed expeditiously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge November 7, 2008 (sks)