ABHISHEK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 14 of 2024, dtd. 13/2/2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 342 and 379 of IPC in Police Station Dhanotu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. FIR No. 17 of 24, dtd. 29/1/2024, FIR No. 23/24 and FIR No. 38/24, dtd. 31/1/2024 were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has already been released on bail in these FIRs. The petitioner has been in custody since 22/7/2024 and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The petitioner is a resident of Delhi. He has deep roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. He shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the bail, which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) The petition was opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that he had parked his vehicle outside his home. The Electronic Control Module (ECM) of his vehicle, his goggles and other articles were stolen on the night of 27/1/2024. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police arrested the petitioner in another FIR involving the theft of ECM. He revealed on inquiry that he and Rohit had stolen 8 ECM while returning from Manali. The petitioner has got the ECM recovered to SIT of Police Station, Sadar, Mandi. The informant also identified the ECM. The petitioner is to be interrogated. His co-accused is yet to be arrested. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.