IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 807 of 2008. Date of decision: September 5, 2008. Anil Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 395, 458, 380, 342, 411, 120-B, IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was at his native place at Bilaspur where he received telephonic message from Police Station, Baddi that he was required in connection with some case. Accordingly, the petitioner returned to Baddi on 13.11.2007 and presented himself at Police Station, Baddi. He was informed that on 28.10.2007 a dacoity had taken place in the premises of Luminous Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Power Technology, Baddi and FIR No. 169 of 2007 to this effect has been registered at Police Station, Baddi. The petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2007 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The name of the petitioner has been included at the instance of Rahul. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan has been presented in the court. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. It is not clear how much time the trial will take. The petitioner earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 647 of 2008 which was rejected by this court on 16.7.2008. It has also been submitted that no identification parade has been conducted. The father of the petitioner is under treatment at Command Hospital, Armed Forces. The petition has been opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious case. The bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a detailed order dated 16.7.2008 and thereafter there is no change of circumstances. The learned Deputy Advocate General has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order dated 16.7.2008 passed by this court, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by a detailed order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no identification parade was conducted in the present case and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was identified by anybody at the time of alleged commission of offence. It is not a case where there is no eye witness. It will be …3… seen during trial whether the petitioner is identified or not. During investigation, the prosecution witness Jagdish has named the petitioner. There is no change of circumstances after 16.7.2008 when bail application of petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the application is rejected. 4. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. September 5, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.