RAM CHAND GUPTA - (1.) THIS order will dispose of both the afore-mentioned applications for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.316 dated 12.11.2011 under Sections 392,412, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 216, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused Pardeep that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that he was arrested later on just on suspension. It is further submitted that even after obtaining police remand of petitioner-accused, no recovery could be effected from him as is clear from order dated 13.12.2011 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri, according to which no recovery has been effected from the petitioner-accused. However, later on it has been shown that an amount of Rs.60,000/- and some mobile phone were recovered from petitioner-accused on 12.12.2011. It has been further contended that actually no such recovery was effected from petitioner-accused and the recovery has been planted upon him in the back date. It is further submitted that moreover, merely on the ground that some currency notes were recovered by the Investigating Officer from the petitioner-accused while he was in police custody, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed an offence under Section 392 of IPC or he was involved in this robbery and at the most, it is a case for receiving stolen property. Further submitted that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 9.12.2011 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no witness has been examined so far.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner- accused Mandeep that even as per order dated 19.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, it has been argued by learned Public Prosecutor for the State that the request for remand of the accused dated 21.11.2011 factum of alleged recovery of Rs.50,000/- from petitioner- accused Mandeep was not mentioned, whereas the recovery from petitioner-accused of Rs.50,000/- has been shown to be effected on 20.11.2011. IT is further submitted that petitioner-accused has also been arrested on the basis of suspicion and the alleged recovery of currency notes has been planted upon him and hence, the offence, if any, made out is under Section 411 of 412 of IPC and no offence under Section 392 or 395 is made out against the petitioner-accused. Further submitted that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 17.11.2011 and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no witness has been examined so far.;