Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri B.B. Dubey, appearing for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated during the course of investigation. Recovered ornaments do not tally with the list furnished by the complainant and the recovery of the knife was not made under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was also submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and he has been made as an a accused on the basis of suspicion. 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 offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Dhruv Kashyap involved in case crime no. 374 of 2009 under sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C. and section 4/25 Arms Act Police Station Ekdil District Etawah be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 skv