M.B. Sharma, J.
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the accused-petitioner and perused the case diary, which was sent for. In the night intervening 14th/15th Sept, 78, a dacoity took place inside the house of Chander, Mehtab son of Roshan Meo and others in Village Monja Barma, P.S. Kathumar, District Alwar, in which not only silver ornaments in large quantity were taken away by the dacoits but also injuries to Chander son of Roshan Meo were caused. A report of the incident was lodged on 15.9 78 at 1 PM in P.S. Kathumar and a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. Initially, a case Under Section 458, IPC was registered, but. later on it was converted to Section 395/397, IPC. The accused-petitioner and several others were arrested during the investigation of the case on 23 4 79 and the accused petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 24.4.79. In the identification parade, held in Jail, the accused-petitioner was identified by Chandra son of Roshan, one of the injurred persons and Monja. On the information given by the accused-petitioner Under Section 27 Evidence Act, one Khangwadi (Hansli) weighing about 1 Kg. was recovered from inside his house at his instance. A charge sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner and others and the case has been committed to the Sessions Judge, Alwar, who has transferred it to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar for disposal in accordance with Jaw.
2. The submission of the learned Advocate is that the case of the accused-petitioner is similar to the case of Jhadmal, who was ordered to be released on bail vide order of this Court dated 11.10,79 (passed by Mr. Justice D.P. Gupta) and, therefore, the accused-petitioner should be released on bail.
3. An offence Under Section 395/397 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and also to fine. The submission of the learned Advocate is that only two witnesses identified Jhadmal and the alleged stolen property was also recovered from him and similar is the case of the accused-petitioner and he should not be dealt with distinctly. I have gone through the order dated 11.10.79 passed in an application for bail on behalf of four accused persons while the application of three, namely Sheo Singh, Beenu, and Chutilli was dismissed, the application of Jhadmal was allowed. It is not mentioned therein as to what were the reasons which prevailed upon the learned Judge to release the accused Jhadmal on bail.
4. One of the witnesses, who identified the accused petitioner, was none else, but Chander, who allegedly received injuries during the course of dacoity and the injuries are six in number including the fracture of the shaft of humerous. It is the case of the prosecution that Chander was caught by the miscreants and was beaten and then he ran away. It was a moonlit night. In the absence of any reason in the order granting bail to Jhadmal. I am unable to say that the case of Jhadmal and of the accused-petitioner is similar. I am also unable to say for the present that on the material on record it can be said that there are no reasonable chances of the accused-petitioner having committed an offence Under Section 395/397, IPC. In a serious case like dacoity, if there is material on record, granting of bail is an exception and not the rule.
5. In the result, I hereby dismiss this bail application.