- (1.) V K. Chaturvedi, J. Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, as sisted by Sri Ramesh Sinha, for the ap plicant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE first bail application of this applicant was rejected by this Bench vide a detailed order dated 30-7- 1999. THE fresh ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in this second bail application has been men tioned in Paragraph No. 22 of the affidavit which is quoted as under:- "that is pertinent to mention here that the alleged recovery of contraband article is alleged to have been recovered from House No. 108/9a, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur whereas the house number of applicant is 109/9a, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur, Police Station George Town, District Allahabad. " In paragraph No. 23 of the aforesaid affidavit of this bail application it has also been averred that the house from which the alleged contraband article has been recovered does not belong to the applicant. In support of these averments, learned counsel for the applicant has filed several documents of Government depart ments to show that House No. 109/9a, Ramanand Nagar, Allahabad, belong to the applicant and not House No. 108/9a, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur from where alleged contraband article has been recovered. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been recovered from the per sonal search of the applicant. In paragraph No. 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by Prem Kumar Yadav, investigation officer of the aforesaid case, wherein it is mentioned that "in reply to contents of paragraphs No. 22 and 23 of the application, it is stated that when the accused persons were arrested they asked the police party as House No. 108/9a, Ramanand Nagar, Al lahpur while in fact when the site plan was prepared, the correct house number was written. It is pointed out here that this fact was with the accused applicant at the time of filing of the first bail application, there fore, this plea cannot be raised in the second bail application according to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court as have been stated above. " In the said counter- af fidavit filed by the investigating officer, it is nowhere mentioned that the House No. 108/9a is owned by the applicant.
(3.) IT has been further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused Prem Shanker, who was also said to have been arrested along with the applicant has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 5th August, 1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the second bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab v. Baldev, 1999 (39)ACC349 (SC ). I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the basis of the documents an nexed with this bail application and also considered the fact that the applicant is in jail with effect from 12-4-1999 and even the charges have not been framed and is also a respectable man of the society. Therefore, he is not likely to abscond.;