Counsel for the accused contended that his client was not named in the first information report (FIR). During investigation, his complicity was assumed on the basis of his confessional statement. It was also submitted that after the arrest, two cases were slapped upon the accused, and that nothing was recovered from his possession. Further, there was no independent eye witness of the recovery, the advocate argued.
The accused had also given an undertaking that if released on bail, he would deposit ₹1 lakh with a registered gaushala in Bareilly, where he would also serve for a month.
After hearing the arguments, the Court stated in its order,
“…taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.” (sic)
Source: Barandbench
