Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 February, 2020
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.: 141 of 2020 Reserved on: 23.01.2020 .
Date of Decision: 24.02.2020 ______________________________________________________________________ Israr ....Petitioner.
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Narender Guleria, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. ASI Dev Raj, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Nalagarh, is present in person alongwith record.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge :
The petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as accused in FIR No. 167 of 2019, dated 03.06.2019, registered under Sections 380, 411 & 457 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., disclosing nonbailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.
2. Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report(s) as well as the Police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2020 20:23:46 :::HCHP 2Criminal Procedure, to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition and heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Prior to the present bail petition, the petitioner had .
filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.PC, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. However, vide order, dated 18.10.2019, the same was dismissed.
4. On 3rd June, 2019, police received an information on Helpline No. 112 that ATM machine of UCO Bank, Nalagarh has been stolen. On this, police party reached at UCO Bank, Nalagarh. There the complainant informed the police that the ATM machine has been stolen on 2nd July, 2019 in the night at 1:26 a.m. and the ATM machine at that time stood loaded with cash amounting to `8,32,000/. During investigation, the police took into possession the CCTV footage.
5. The petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage and even his mobile location tallied with other accused. Therefore, no case for bail is made out. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this bail shall not come in the way of the petitioner filing subsequent bail petitions before this Court. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the Court(s) shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. Copy dasti.
(Anoop Chitkara) Judge February 24, 2020 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2020 20:23:46 :::HCHP