IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6475/2009 Balraj vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 24.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav Advocate on behalf of the applicant Balraj pertaining to F.I.R. No. 39/2009 at police station Behror, District Alwar, in the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.01.2009. The recovery of the stolen articles has taken place and no more recovery is required to be made from his possession. The petitioner is simple a driver of the vehicle and is in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences of the instant case. The co-accused Raju has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench, hence, on the ground of parity, he may also be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that 139 cartons of soya been oil, 56 tins of Hari oil, 92 tins of oscar vanaspati oil and 93 tins of 15 liters containing oil have been recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner who was transporting them in a vehicle. The petitioner has been arrested with the stolen article against whom under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. A presumption can be drawn that either he is an accused or the receiver of the stolen articles, hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record including the bail order dated 21.07.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror, it is noticed that the aforesaid stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. So far as, the case of Raju is concerned, nothing has been recovered from his possession. The case of the petitioner is not found to be similar to the case of the co-accused Raju. Hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Balraj S/o. Chaman lal under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- s-6