Manish Pandey vs State of U.P.

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The complainant (Azizuddin Ansari) was returning after withdrawing money from the Bank in Varanasi City proper, when he was waylaid by two motorcycle riding robbers, who fired upon him, causing fire arm injury in his left leg in consequence whereof, he fell down.

Two robbers, thereafter, escaped with a ''Jhola'' in which the complainant was carrying his money Rs. 18000/.

Heard Sri Shyam Sudarshan advocate for the applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

The application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge, who has come to this Court.

The prosecution case for the present rests only on the testimony of two witnesses who say that they knew the accused from before, and have named them in their statements. The Counsel for the accused pointed out, that the statement of these witnesses was recorded after 51 days of the occurrence. There is no doubt, that there is unusual delay in recording their statements, but the consequences thereof have to be considered, along with other circumstances at the time of Trial, and it has to be seen what explanation the prosecution offers for the delay.

Highway robbery in a crowded city area in day light is a matter of great concern and undermines the confidence of people. It would not be appropriate to grant bail in such matters. Bail refused.

We must however, explain our consternation and the circumstance that in a case of day light city proper robbery, the statement of witnesses were recorded after 51 days, which demonstrates unpardonable lethargy in part of the police administration. Besides the victim also saw his two assailants, and he did not know them from before. No Identification parade has hitherto been conducted, wherein the victim may be asked to identify the two accused robbers. This demonstrates the poor and tardy character of the police Bandobast in the city. The police administration at Varanasi needs rejuvenation and recharging.