Satish Kumar vs State of U.P.and another

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.

Mr. Nazrul Islam Jafri has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no doubt the applicant and coaccused Fakirey were arrested at the time of recovery but the bag where from five skins of Wild Animals were recovered was in possession of the coaccused Fakirey, therefore, the applicant has been implicated on account of misunderstanding and there is no evidence that the applicant was not in any way in possession of the recovered articles.

The learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offences.

The learned AGA opposed the bail, but could not point out anything otherwise.

In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant has substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

Moreso, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offences, evidence, complicity of the applicant, the severity of the punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Let the applicant Satish Kumar involved in Case Crime No. R.C. 0622011E0001 of 2011, under section 120B I.P.C. and 51 read with section 49 and 49B of Wild Life (Protections) Act, 1972, Police StationE.O.U. V, EO II CBI New Delhi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.