SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the arrest of the applicant some cash was recovered from his possession which was not subjected to identification, as required by S. 9 of the Evidence Act. The informant was summoned and he was made to say that these are those very notes, although none of them bear any specific mark of identification. No such mark is adverted to in the FIR on these notes. The applicant was also not subjected to any physical identification, as adverted to above about the property. The investigative process in the State appears to have gone completely away. No law is meant for the police to adhere to. It prefers more its flouting than adherence to and the senior police officials appear to have turned a blind eye to the situation. Apparently the junior police officials, from these situations and facts, appear to have been colluding with the criminals. No other proof is required to establish the nexus between them and the criminals. In the circumstances, this Court finds no alternative but to release this applicant on bail.

(3.) Let, therefore, the applicant involved in case Crime No. 62 of 2000 under Ss. 396, IPC, P.S. Gurubuxganj, District Rae Bareli, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareli.