The presumption of innocence and the objective of bail to secure trial attendance must be balanced against the gravity of the offense when considering bail applications.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Yogesh Kumar @ Harry, who is behind the bars since 06.04.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 70 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024, under Sections 395 , 414 , 411 and 120-B of IPC , registered with Police Station, Baddi District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Amarjit Singh, PS Baddi, has come present with records.

3. Close scrutiny of status report as well as record made available to this Court reveals that on 26.3.2024, complainant Rajesh Kumar, lodged a complaint at Police Station Baddi, alleging therein that in the intervening night of 24/25.3.2024, 15-16 persons entered the factory premises and committed theft of 1500-1800 Kgs of brass articles. Complainant alleged that though two security guards were on duty, but they were overpowered by aforesaid persons, who were armed with deadly weapons. On the basis of aforesaid information, police conducted investigation and lodged complaint under Section 395 of IPC against unknown persons, however subsequently, during investigation and on the basis of CCTV footage, it transpired that person namely Jai Mangal had sold few items in the shop of Shivji Sahni and Pankaj Kabaria. During investigation of co-accused Jai Mangal, it came to be transpired that petitioner herein is also one of the persons, who had committed theft of brass articles from the factory premises on the date of alleged incident. It has come in the evidence that after alleged incident of theft of brass, the stolen property was distributed inter se co-accused and the petitioner herein also got 70 Kg of brass, which he later sold in the market for the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Co-accused namely Shivji Sahani & Munna Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.06.2024 and 11.06.2024 passed in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1213 of 2024 & 1087 of 2024, whereas other co-accused Brijesh has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.11.2024. Petitioner herein, who is behind bars for more than eight months, earlier applied for bail in the Court of learned District Judge, Nalagarh, but same was dismissed and as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground that challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kahol, states that since petitioner actively participated in alleged theft and five co- accused are yet to be arrested, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that event, he may not only flee from the justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court is not persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner on the date of alleged incident actively participated in the incident and he also sold some portion of stolen property in the market for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, however, having taken note of fact that bail- petitioner has already suffered for more than eight months and three of co- accused already stand enlarged on bail, prayer made on behalf of petitioner for grant of regular bail deserves to be considered. There is nothing in the status