High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anoop Singh @ Dampi v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10623 of 2006  RD-AH 20029 (27 November 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10623 of 2006
Anoop Singh @ Dampi Applicant
State of U.P. Opposite party.
Hon. Vinod Prasad, J
The applicant Anoop Singh @ Dampi is an accused in Crime No. 3 of 2006 u/s 396, 412 and 120 B IPC, P.S. Sukhpura, district Ballia. His bail prayer was rejected by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge, Ballia on 20.4.2006 in the aforesaid crime number, hence he has approached this court u/s 439 Cr. P.C. and has prayed for his release on bail in the aforesaid crime number.
The short allegations against the applicant by the prosecution, as is mentioned in the FIR (annexure 1) are that on 2.1.2006 at about 11.30 A.M. Ram Kripal Yadav Senior Assistant and Lallan Pandey Bank Guard were carrying Rs. ten lakhs to the Bank in Ambassador Car DHB8580 from Ballia City Branch then all of a sudden near Maya Baba Sobai Bandh some unknown persons over took the Ambassador Car and shot the Bank personals and injured them and they whished away with the box of the bank containing the said amount. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Krishna chandra, Branch Manager of the said Bank on the same day at 12.10.P.M. Further according to the prosecution the applicant was arrested on 25.3.2006 and from his possession a pistol and motorcycle used in the aforesaid crime was recovered. On the said facts the applicant has approached for his release on bail.
I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior counsel assisted by Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant in support of this bail application and learned AGA in opposition.
Sri V. P. Srivastava learned Senior Counsel, for the applicant contended that the applicant was named by Manish the co-accused who has already been released on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9178 of 2006 on 11.5.2006 (annexure 8). He further contended that the applicant was never put up for identification before the witnesses. He further contended that neither he is named in the FIR nor in the statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery of money and the motor cycle No. U.P. 54 B-7768 having Engine no. 02818 E 43815 and chasis No. 02828 F 44165 was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further contended that the said motorcycle belongs to one Dinesh Kumar who had lodged a report of its theft as crime no. 118/05 at P.S. Sikandar Pur, district Ballia on 4.12.2006 at 6.20 P.M. The alleged theft is said to have taken place on 3.12.2005 at an unknown time. He further submitted that the said motorcycle was recovered on 2.1.2006 from a canal. He invited the attention of the court on the news item published in newspaper. He contended that on 3.2.2006 the aforesaid Dinesh Kumar filed a release application in respect of the said motorcycle, which was released on 20.4.2006 to him by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, II Ballia (annexure S A 10) to second supplementary affidavit. He further contended that during the course of release application filed by Dinesh Kumar, a report was called for by the concerned court from the police on 13.2.2006 but no report was submitted and then another report was called for on 14.2.2006 which again was not sent by the police concerned. Subsequently the said motorcycle had been shown to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant on 25.3.2006. He further contended that the whole prosecution is absolutely cooked up and the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that Rs. 85, 000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant which belongs to the Bank and therefore, the applicant does not deserve bail.
I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides.
In this case it is admitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR nor he was put up for identification. Learned AGA also could not furnish any reasonable explanation how the motorcycle alleged to have been used in the crime being Motorcycle No. U. P. 54-B/7768 came in possession of the applicant on 25.3.2006 when the same was already recovered by the police on 2.1.2006 from a canal and was released on 20.4.2006 under the orders of the Magistrate. He also could not furnished any explanation as to how during this period the motorcycle went out of the custody of the police. Learned AGA also could not deny the fact that the applicant was named by the co-accused Manish and his complicity in the crime came through his statement and that the co-accused Manish has already been allowed bail by this court. He further could not deny the fact that the presence of the applicant alongwith said motorcycle on 25.3.2006 is a very doubtful circumstance.
On the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Anoop Singh @ Dampi be released on bail in Crime No. 3 of 2006, u/s 396, 412 and 120 B IPC, P.S. Sukhpura, district Ballia, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Ballia.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.