Alok K.Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
(2.) THE case diary available with the learned A.G.A. was also perused on relevant points. The applicant is involved in Crime No.848 of 2008, under Sections 395, 397, 412, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. According to the prosecution a dacoity was committed by five unknown persons on 01.12.2008 at 5.45 p.m. in the ICICI Main Branch, Gonda. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Branch Manager of the bank on the same day after 45 minutes. In this dacoity an amount of Rs.54,23,338/- was taken away from the counter alongwith mobile phones, one CPU (computer) and one licensed double barrel gun wielded by the guard. In the process injuries were also caused on the face of cashier Chandra Shekhar. Another CPU containing the photographs taken by CCTV was however could not be taken away by the dacoits.
(3.) AT the outset it may be mentioned that out of the looted cash, an amount of rupees forty four lacs thirty nine thousand and five hundred has been recovered by the police. It also comes out from record that on 29/30.12.2008 after receiving a secret information from the informer the police arrested five persons namely co-accused Umesh Singh, Virendra Pratap Singh alias Veeru, Ratnesh Singh and Samar Singh and Saddu Yadav who committed the actual act of dacoity. These persons were coming in a white Maruti van from Faizabad. From their possession few arms and cartridges and some cash amount was recovered i.e. Rs.4700, 4300, 3200, 1500 and 1300 respectively. Subsequently on their pointing out sumptuous amount was recovered and relevant recovery memos were prepared. For this purpose three police parties had been constituted under the direction of the Superintendent of Police. AT the time of arrest some of the bank officials also identified the arrested persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in his recovery memo neither any date nor denomination of currency notes have been mentioned whereas in the recovery memo of other co- accused denominations of packed notes and number of new currency notes are also mentioned. He also submitted that no copy of recovery memo was provided to him. In this regard, learned counsel drew the attention of the Court towards the copy of recovery memo of Santosh Singh filed along with the counter affidavit (Anneuxre No. 2). He further submitted that the names of the police officers/officials mentioned in the alleged recovery of co-accused Jagannath Singh are different from the names which are mentioned in respect of the present applicant while recovery is of same date. He also claimed parity with co-accused Jagannath Singh.;