MAHENDRA RAJPOOT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.366 of 2015 u/s 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station -Chakeri, District -Kanpur Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

(2.) Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is running a business of scrap and the local police was on its payroll . Further submission is that the police was insisting to increase the monthly payment and it is because of this reason primarily that the applicant has been implicated in the case. It has been further submitted that all the recoveries shown by the police are false and frivolous. It has been pointed out that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.4.2015.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case in which according to the First Information Report when the mother of the first informant returned after worshipping in the temple an unknown miscreant snatched away her golden chain which had contained along with it a locket also. It was also reported in the F.I.R. that after looking into the camera footage it was also discovered that there were two miscreants in which one was waiting aside and after the act of snatching both of them fled away on a motorcycle along with looted chain. It has been further pointed out that when the applicant was arrested along with another co -accused Chandra Shekhar it was disclosed by them that the looted chain was sold to a gold smith in lieu of Rs.47,000/ -. On the basis of information furnished by the accused -applicant and co -accused, when the police raided the gold smith's place he admitted that the chain sold by the accused -applicant had already been melted away while the locket which was also sold to the gold smith (namely Akash) was still intact and the same was also handed over to the police. Further submission is that the recovery of the locket whose loot was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. itself lends intrinsic corroboration to the genuineness of the recovery effected by the police and there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused -applicant. It has also been submitted that the insinuations, as has been made by the accused -applicant, have been specifically denied in the counter affidavit and are nothing except a figment of applicant's imagination and a bald defence plea to any how explain his involvement in the crime. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that the applicant is having criminal history of six cases including the present one.