Brij Bhan vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1552 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13662 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Brij Bhan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Dr. Arun Srivastava,Amit Kumar Srivastava,P.C.Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State  and perused the record.

As per  the F.I.R  version on 4.2.2011 at about  7.30 p.m.  some unidentified  dacoits  committed  dacoity in the house of the complainant  and decamped with  looted ornaments and  cash  in respect of which an .F.I.R was lodge on the same day  against unknown dacoits. Later on  at Aliganj, District Bareilly, the police said to have arrested  the co-accused persons in other  case on 5.3.2011 and  they have confessed  to have committed  this occurrence also  and further  disclosed  the names of the applicant accused and other accused persons  to be accomplish of  the occurrence of the dacoity. On the  basis of confessional  statement of the  co-accused, the police  raided  the house of the applicant accused and arrested him  and  got  recovery of 23 Golden wrings weighing 20 grams  and silver ornaments  weighing  about  3 Kgs.  On the basis of the  confessional statement of co-accused  and applicant himself  the recovery  was made, the applicant has been booked in this case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits  that there is no independent  witness of the alleged recovery.  The arresting  police party said  to have  recovered  the looted property from the applicant accused in presence  of the complainant. It is very strange  that  how  the complainant  arrived at the spot  when the police was  recovering the alleged  ornaments and  cash from the applicant accused after about  a month.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed  the application for bail  and submitted  that  since  the applicant accused was arrested with  case property  which was  identified   by the  complainant himself, therefore he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Considering the rival  contention of the both  sides, the Court is of hte  view that  the applicant has succeeded  in establishing  the case for bail.

Let the applicant,  Brij Bhan be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two  sureties  each in the like amount to the satisfaction of  court concerned in Case Crime No. 85 of 2011,  u/ss 395,412/34 I.P.C., P.S. Aliganj, District Bareilly. 

Order Date :- 10.5.2012

R