- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
(2.) This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected for non prosecution by the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore.
(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the accused has been falsely implicated and a false recovery has been shown from his possession. It has also been submitted that there is connecting link evidence against co-accused Sajid, who confessed his guilty. The case of the present applicant is totally distinguishable from the case of the Sajid, who had links with one Afzal. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the alleged recovery of fake currency notes to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- cannot be relied upon because there are no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged witness are two T.T.Is , who were prepared for witness the recovery one day prior to the incident. It is further submitted that there is no evidence except the recovery, which is not supported by independent witness, hence the applicant is entitled to bail.;