Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1068 of 2008 24.10.2008 Present: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for seeking bail in the case FIR No. 92 of 2008 dated 1.4.2008 under Sections 395, 397, 411, 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Nalagarh. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The First Information Report has been registered at the instance of Smt. Nirmal Kaur. Her husband is working at Dabhota as a ‘Munshi’ at Laxmi Bricks Kiln, Dabhota. It is alleged that on 1.4.2008, three persons entered the house of the complainant. One of them was armed with sword and one was armed with iron ‘Gandasa’. They demanded the keys of the trunk from her. Her hands were tied and tape was placed on her mouth. These persons decamped with the trunk. The trunk was recovered and the vehicle involved in the incident was also apprehended. The trunk was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by Mr. Gurpal Singh. Mr. S.D. Gill has strenuously argued that the investigation in the case is complete and his client would abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. The petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner or threaten the witnesses. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. His submission is that the petitioner had committed a heinous crime and there is possibility of the petitioner threatening the witnesses. :2: The petitioner had earlier moved an application seeking bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the same on 4.10.2008 by a speaking order. What emerges from the report of the police is that the petitioner and his companions were armed with lethal weapons at the time of dacoity on 1.4.2008. The accused had taken away the trunk forcibly. The trunk was recovered on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act made by the co-accused-Shri Gurpal Singh. The trunk as well as vehicle involved in the incident has been recovered. It is not a fit case where the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. There is every possibility of the evidence being tampered with by the petitioner. Consequently, the application is dismissed. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as an expression/opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), J. October 24, 2008. (cr)