Jitendra Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

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 a.m. along with other co-accused informant also was present. How the informant reached the spot? Arrest 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. Adding 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 along with 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 shows 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, i.e., Rs. 8,100 belonged to his family. It was collected 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 parties agreed to certain adjustments. A daughter was born to Smt. Shashi on 2.1.2001. In these circumstances, it is contended that it cannot be eliminated completely 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 identification 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.

In the circumstances, let the applicant, Jitendra Kumar Pandey, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Allahabad, in Case Crime No. 16 of 1999, u/s 394/302, I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, district Allahabad.