IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.248 of 2010. Decided on: 9th April, 2010. ________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP. ....Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) Police report filed. Heard and gone through the record. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in FIR No.90 of 2010 registered on 22nd March, 2010, under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the ‘Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972’ in Police Station, Dharamshala, as such the instant application for pre-arrest bail has been filed in this Court. Precisely, the prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 22nd March, 2010 at 7.45 PM, the police party was on routine traffic checking near toll-tax barrier at Dharamshala. While checking Mahindra vehicle No.HP-37C-7037 police recovered an Idol of Lord “Mahavir” from the possession of Rajesh Kumar and Atul Kumar, which appeared to be an antiquity. Apprehending that the said Idol might not be a theft property, it was taken into 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - possession and a Ruka for registration of the case was sent. Both the accused persons were arrested and later granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala. During their interrogation it came to light that this Idol was taken from the present petitioner by the main accused. Since he apprehended his arrested, as such, approached this Court for pre-arrest bail. Pursuant to the last order the petitioner joined the investigation and on his interrogation it came to light that he had helped Surinder Nagpal (now deceased), to sell it as he was facing some financial crises. The police recorded the statement of the mother of Surinder deceased, namely Smt. Savitri Devi, who also confirmed this fact that the said Idol was with her deceased son. Against the aforesaid background and also the fact that till now the expert report has not been received if the said Idol recovered from Rajesh Kumar and Atul Kumar was an ‘antiquity’ within the meaning of the Act. There is no allegation that it was a theft property. Keeping in view the role of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail can be granted to him, as such the petition is allowed. Interim bail granted on 30th March, 2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions and also on the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation of this case and shall also be present in the Court as and when required. Needless to say that in case the petitioner makes any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the liberty of his bail shall be cancelled. - 3 - Any expression or observations made heretofore, shall not affect the merits of the case, as it is strictly for the purpose of deciding this petition. The petition stands disposed of. April 9, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)