KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. False recovery has been shown against the applicant by the police personnel. It is next contended that the in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been contended that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and he is languishing in jail since 22/4/2023.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.