AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Aurangabad Town PS Case No. 376 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018 instituted under Sections 395,
397, 412, 413 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused is of looting a jewellery shop, of gold worth Rs. 30,00,000/- and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was lodged against five unknown persons and only upon the arrest of Rakesh Giri, who
was identified by the CCTV footage of the scene, the role of the petitioner has been alleged, but it is only on such confessional statement which is not
admissible in law. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Pradeep Kumar Shahu and Deepak Kumar Shahu have been granted anticipatory bail
by a coordinate bench of this Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent.
Leaned APP, from the case diary submitted that the active role of the petitioner has been disclosed by the person who was caught after being
identified through CCTV footage. It was further submitted that the involvement of the petitioner has been corroborated by other co-accused also.
Learned counsel submitted that when the police had gone looking for the petitioner, at his house, he had absconded. Learned counsel submitted that
the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Aurangabad in order dated 22.08.2019 in ABP No. 725 of 2019, by which the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected, has clearly written that the case of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Shahu and Deepak Kumar
Shahu, stands on a different footing as they were not involved in the occurrence of the dacoity directly whereas, in the present case, direct role has
been attributed to the petitioner and, thus, he was an active participant.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
In view of him being granted provisional anticipatory bail by order dated 14.10.2019, and now prayer for anticipatory bail having been rejected, his
bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today, failing which the Court shall take all steps to
ensure that the petitioner is arrested.