JUDGMENT G.P. Srivastva, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. It is alleged that the applicant and three other co-accused persons in order to rob the informant Raju Verma dragged him in an open house when the informant protested a person hit by a Danda on his head and the other three accused persons tried to flee along with a bag of the informant containing Rs. 1,40,000/- cash and gold ornaments. The applicant was apprehended by public at a large and the remaining three accused persons were successful in fleeing along with the looted bag.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the S.O. concerned has found the case suspicious and recorded in the G.D. that there is no need to prepare special report. It was further argued that the applicant was apprehended by the public at the place of occurrence does not hold good because no injury was caused to the applicant. There is a counter affidavit showing that when the applicant was got hold by the public some police personnel's have come on the spot and due to this reason the applicant could not receive any injury at the time of arrest.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no recovery from the applicant. The act of loot was performed by all the accused persons, three accused persons fled away along with the looted property and the applicant was apprehended by public at large. In case no recovery was made from the applicant, it does not mean that the applicant had no role to play in the occurrence. There is injury report which shows that the informant received injuries on his head and shoulder.
5. In the circumstances there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application is rejected.