Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for petitioner is that there are in all five cases registered against the petitioner whereas, the fact is that three out of five cases have been found to be false because in three of those cases, the petitioner filed revision petitions against the order of charge in which the revision petitions have been allowed with finding that there was absolutely no evidence against the petitioner and he was falsely implicated therein. In the present case also the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. The petitioner would undertake not to indulge in any offence in future and therefore, he should be given benefit of bail pending the trial. The petitioner was arrested on 4th July, 2009 and thus he remained behind the bars for more than a year. Bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the court below only on the ground that there were other cases pending against the petitioner whereas the fact is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in those cases after his arrest in the present case.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.;