ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) PARCHA filed by Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of complainant and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, are taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that neither applicant was named in the first information report nor there is any recovery of looted article from the possession of applicant.? The looted article was shown from the possession of co-accused Umesh.? The applicant was implicated merely on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Umesh. He further submitted that applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will cooperate with the trial if he is released on bail. In the present case, applicant is in jail since 10.1.2012.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant and Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer for bail on the ground that on instigation of applicant offence was committed? and he was also involved along-with other co-accused hence he is not entitled for bail. In view of above facts, considering the nature of allegation and offence, without expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit case for bail.?;