ROHIT @ KURI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Rohit @ Kuri, who is behind the bars since 13.01.2020, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.82 of 2019, dated 11.4.2019, under Sections 457, 380, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dated 18.8.2020, reveals that on 11.4.2019 complaint got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C at police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that on 11.4.2019, some unknown persons unauthorizedly entered his house and after breaking the door put on his Pooja room committed theft of two gold jewellery sets, six rings and one bracelet and as such, appropriate action be taken in accordance with law. After lodging of the aforesaid report, initially FIR came to be lodged against unknown persons under Section 457 and 380 of IPC, but thereafter during investigation, police on the basis of the dump data found involvement of present bail petitioner, who at that relevant time was in custody of police Station, Amb in connection with FIR No.55 of 2019, dated 28.4.2019, under Sections 457, 380 and 34 of IPC. During investigation, bail petitioner revealed that he alongwith other co-accused after having committed theft had gone to Kangra-via- Mandi. He admitted that he had given sum of Rs. 40,000/- to co-accused, whereas had kept all the gold jewellery,which was subsequently sold to some jeweller in Pathankot (Punjab). In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner as well as other co-accused and since 13.1.2020, he is behind the bars.

(3.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law, contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected.