JITENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the applicant that F. I. R. does not disclose any features and age of those miscreants who had committed high-way robbery and killed his son. IT is also, according to him, most unnatural that at the time of arrest of this applicant at 6. 00 a. m. along with other co-accused informant also was present. How the informant reached the spot? Ar rest memo does not show that at the time of arrest this informant accompanied with the police officials. The last submission is that it is not the case of the prosecution that apart from those 3 accused persons who were arrested on 4th April, 1999 any other accused was found involved in the commission of this offence. The recovery memos clearly show that they had given to the investigating officer Rs. 8,100/-, Rs. 9,600/- and Rs. 2. 300/- as their shares. Ad ding this amount comes to approximate Rs. 20. 000/- only. The amount robbed in this case admittedly is the above money that was drawn by the informant from the bank alongwith that money he had also fixed deposits receipts and the N. S. C. worth Rs. 50,000/- and pass- book in a bag. The miscreants had taken away the bag which was held by the deceased. The recovery from the 3rd accused Uma Shankar Pandey is only a sum of Rs. 1. 350/-The recovery memo show that he had stated that a sum of Rs. 950/- was spent by him. The offence was committed at about 1. 30 p. m. on 3-4-1999. Some time must have been taken in distributing it and thereafter going to their houses to conceal it. IT is further contended that the money recovered from the applicant Le. Rs. 8,100/- belonged to his family. IT was col lected for the purpose of solemnisation of Gauna (second marriage) of his sister Smt. Shashi. An affidavit has been filed in this connection by the father-in-law of Smt. Shashi, sister of the applicant. He had stated in this affidavit in paragraph 4 that the second marriage of Smt. Shashi was solemnised on 21-4-1999 as both the par ties agreed to certain adjustments. A daughter has born to Smt. Shashi on 2-1-2001. In these circumstances it is con cerned that it cannot be eliminated com pletely that the amount recovered from the applicant did not belong to his family. IT is further contended that this applicant was deliberately not subjected to test iden tification from the informant and other witnesses. Without adverting any further to the merits and without recording any finding on these contentions. I find that it is fit case for bail. This applicant is in jail since 4-4-1999. Only the complainant was examined as yet and for the last 6 months, as pointed out, no other witness is produced in the Court for examination.