KAMAL KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order and other documents annexed hereto. It comes out that the applicant has been challaned in Crime No.639 of 2008, which was initially registered under Sections 395 and 397 IPC against unknown person, but subsequently converted under Sections 395, 397, 412 and 120-B IPC, police station Ram Sanehi Ghat, district Barabanki. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the applicant was arrested in Case Crime No. 07 of 2009, under Section 3/25 Arms Act and Case Crime No. 08 of 2009, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act on 06.01.2009 and from his possession as alleged country made pistol as well as narcotics was recovered, on the basis of statement of the applicant he has been implicated in the present case since the present FIR was lodged against unknown person. Further it has been asserted by the learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of alleged statement recorded in Case Crime Nos. 07 of 2009 and 08 of 2009, the applicant cannot be implicated in other cases, which were lodged against unknown person. It has been vehemently argued as also mentioned in para-20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant relating to Crime No. 639 of 2008. Apart from that, it has been argued that even identification parade of the applicant has not been conducted so as to haul up/induct him in the present case. Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter and without commenting on merit of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. Let applicant-Kamal Kumar Kaushal, accused of Crime No. 639 of 2008, initially registered under Sections 393 and 397 IPC, but subsequently converted under Sections 395/397/412/120-B IPC, police station Ram Sanehi Ghat, district Barabanki be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.