DILIP KUMAR PANPALIA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sri Dilip Kumar Panpalia, who at the relevant time when dacoity had taken place, was posted as Cashier of Central Bank, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar. It is said that all the employees of the bank were held ransom by the dacoits as is also ascertainable from the report lodged at the police station. Even the informant Sri Raghunath Shastri, who was in charge of the bank on that day was first asked to handover the keys of the cash by placing pistol at his temple by the dacoits. But he expressed his inability as having no keys. Thereafter, Sri Dilip Kumar Panpalia and Sri K. Singh Jagpagi were threatened for handing over the keys. They handed over the keys of the cash to those bandits. Emphasis has been laid that nowhere specific allegations have been assigned against the accused applicant conspiring with those bandits for making the loot of the cash. Whatever) the evidence has been assigned against the accused-applicant not even remote making out the offence under Sec. 395/397/412/120-B, IPC. It has further been mentioned that whatever the evidence has been shown against the accused-applicant that he was called, by name by one of the bandits and there after he assisted them in handing over the keys of the cash, as has already been mentioned that in the FIR, there is also the reference that all the employees of the bank were threatened and even the pistol was kept at the temple of the accused-applicant. In that situation in the atmosphere if he handed over the keys and cash would not attribute the allegations of conspiracy with those bandits. It has also been mentioned that in the statement of Sri Srikant, co-accused the reference of Sri Sudhakar Yadav has also been given. Emphasis has also been laid that such statement of co-accused that too before the police cannot be read against the accused applicant. However, on behalf of the State it has been contended that there is also one clinching evidence against the accused applicant, i.e. the statement of Sri Idrish Ansari in the course of investigation who stated with regard to the visiting of Sri Sudhakar Yadav at the house of the cashier. Sri Sudhakar Yadav has not been arranged as accused in this case. On the basis of the materials on record, prima facie involvement of the accused applicant at this stage is not ascertainable. In the given circumstances the accused applicant deserves bail.

(2.) Let Sri Dilip Kumar Panpalia, accused applicant be released on bail for the offences under Sec. 395/397/412/ 120-B, Penal Code in Case Crime No. 890/2003, P.S. Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar subject to his furnishing personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.