IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.725 of 2008 Decided on: July 25, 2008. Sandeep Chauhan …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr B.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.116 registered on 12.6.2007 at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur under Sections 342, 328, 392, 34 I.P.C. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 12.6.2007 Surinder Kumar Bhatia complainant made a statement before S.H.O., Barmana that he is running a shop at Kainchi Mor Barmana for the last 22 years. On 12.6.2007 at about 12.00 p.m. he was present in his shop. Raku Jaweller, who is having a shop opposite to his shop, came from Bilaspur in his car at about 10 a.m. Two persons aged about 45 years and 25 years came to his shop and took cold drinks etc. and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… remained there till 2.30 p.m. Thereafter Raku and those two persons went towards Sundernagar side. All of them returned to the shop at Kainchi Mor at about 7 p.m. Raku was appearing unconscious and was lying. The said two persons took him inside the shop and put him on the floor and closed the shutter. Thereafter, the said two persons boarded Raku’s car and the person aged about 45 years started the car. On suspicion the complainant and Bakshi Ram stopped them and asked them why they had closed the shutter of the shop and why they are running away after leaving Raku in the state of unconsciousness. Those persons told that they are going to fetch medicines. He had some suspicion on them. The said two persons left the place despite the fact that he, Bakshi Ram and others asked them not to leave the place and leave Raku in that condition. He, Bakshi Ram and others opened the shutter of the shop and found that Raku was lying on the floor and gold rings which he used to wear in his both hands were missing. The said two persons after giving some poison or intoxicant to Raku had gone towards Bilaspur after snatching the car. On this, the case was registered. During investigation, aggrieved Raku alias Rakesh Soni was medically examined, his blood and urine samples were taken. The samples were sent to FSL Junga for examination and Lorazepam was detected in the samples. The car No.HP-24B-5100 was recovered. Rakesh Soni, as per his statement, has told that robbers had taken away 495 grams gold jewellary and Rs.58,000 cash. 3. In January 2008 Crime Branch of Delhi Police arrested some robbers including Manish Soni accused No.1 which fact Rakesh …3… Soni came to know through T.V. He disclosed this fact to police. Manish Soni was interrogated who was in the custody of Crime Branch of Delhi Police and he confessed that he and co accused Sandeep Chauhan had committed robbery in the shop of Rakesh Soni on 12.6.2007. Manish Soni made a disclosure statement that he along with Sandeep Chauhan committed robbery in the shop of Rakesh Soni and had stolen 320 grams of gold jewellary and cash Rs.35,000. He has further stated that he had sold the jewellary to Kimti Lal. Kimti Lal produced melted gold pieces weighing 194.350 grams which were taken into possession. Kimti Lal was arrested but later on bailed out. Manish Soni made another disclosure statement that he had concealed stolen jewellary in the box of deck speaker which he had kept in his house. On this 98.830 grams gold jewellary was recovered from the box of deck speaker which was kept in his house. 4. Manish Soni and Sandeep Chauhan came to Bilaspur from Delhi on 11.6.2007 and stayed at Anant Hotel. Sandeep Chauhan surrendered to the police on 1.7.2008 and was arrested. The bail applications filed by Sandeep Chauhan and Manish Soni were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 7.7.2008 and 9.7.2008. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been prepared. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that no recovery was made from the petitioner. The part played by the petitioner is not so serious as compared to Manish …4… Soni. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2008. The trial will take some time and, therefore, the prosecution will gain nothing by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bonds, if released on bail, in accordance with the directions of this Court. The bail has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner during investigation identified the place of Rakesh Soni as well as the place at Panjgain where the car of Rakesh Soni was left by the accused after committing theft. The co-accused Manish Soni has named the petitioner for committing the offence. Some of the recovery has been made. The petitioner and co accused Manish Soni, as per the prosecution, intoxicated or gave some poison to Rakesh Soni and thereafter committed theft of gold jewellary and cash from his shop. The case against the petitioner is serious. The petitioner after about one year has been arrested on 1.7.2008. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 7. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 25, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)