JUDGEMENT 1. SANJAY Karol, J A.S.I., Sanjeev Kumar, I/O, Police Station, Theog, District Shimla is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report filed and taken on record. 2. F.I.R. No.18/2013 was registered at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. on 1.3.2013, under the provisions of Sections 25, 27-54-59 of the Arms Act. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 19.3.2013, this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. It is argued by Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner (Attar Singh) that co-accused (Gopal Singh) has been granted bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla. 3. IT is the version of the prosecution that in the night of 28th February, 2013, while police was on a Naka duty, a vehicle bearing No.HP-09A-2521 was stopped for checking. Two passengers i.e. one lady and the present petitioner were sitting in the vehicle which was being driven by co-accused, Gopal Singh. From the possession of the present petitioner, one country made pistol with one live cartridge and one Khukhri were recovered. Immediately thereafter, present petitioner managed to escape from the spot. Police has been searching for him since then. 4. IT is seen that after interim order was passed on 19.3.2013, present petitioner did participate during the investigation which has unearthed a larger picture with regard to supply of arms by a resident of Saharanpur (U.P.) from whom the petitioner allegedly purchased these weapons. Investigation has necessitated custodial interrogation, which is absolutely necessary in the present case to ascertain the identity/place and particulars of all the persons who are involved in this crime. It is important to maintain peace, law and order within the State. Simply because driver has been granted bail, that fact itself would not confer any right in favour of the present petitioner. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from the custody of the present petitioner. 5. AS such, in my considered view, crime involved is heinous and the present petition merits only rejection. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from the custody of the present petitioner. 5. AS such, in my considered view, crime involved is heinous and the present petition merits only rejection. Ordered accordingly. Interim order dated 19.3.2013 is vacated. 6. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.