IN THE HIGH COUR OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8687 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.4.2010 Sandeep @ Verma …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. In the head note of the petition, instead of Section 357 IPC it shall be read as Section 457 IPC. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that theft of 15.932 kgs of gold ornaments, 72 sliver coins and cash worth Rs.3,15,600/- had occurred on the intervening night of 26/27.12.2009 from the shop of Forever Jewellers situated at Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana. The stolen articles were recovered from the plot of Ravi Kumar (non-applicant) situated in the area of Noorawala Road, Basant Vihar on 28.12.2009. At that time Sandeep @ Verma (petitioner) was also present at the place of recovery. Crl. Misc. No. M-8687 of 2010 [2] According to the complainant-Taranjit Kaur, the petitioner was employed at the shop as a salesman, so she (complainant) did not suspect him. However, Gurvinder Singh who had been deployed as security guard by the Diamond Security Guard at the shop on the opposite lane had informed that with the petitioner there was one more clean shaven person and at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning had gone in a hurry and the gate of the shop was lying open. The complainant has stated that the petitioner who was working as salesman and had been removed from service about 10 days back had somehow got prepared duplicate keys of all the locks and strong room and in connivance with other companions had committed the offence. According to the petitioner, he had resigned from service because he suffered burn injuries some years back and he had severe burning pain in his body during winter. However, the firm did not want to relieve the petitioner as they apprehended that he may leak out information which he had. The petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2009 when he was arrested. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The case is triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The prosecution is to establish its case. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is admitted to bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 22, 2010 amit