G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) Mr. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the police had initially suspected Anurag and Rajesh on the basis of the statement of injured Shivani recorded on 12.4.97 but after some time on her further statement recorded on 4.5.97 the police arrested Atic and Arif Mohd. and even at one stage Shakti Singh and Najju were considered to be the perpetrators of crime Pointing out that the petitioner was not arrested on 21.10.98 and 22.10.98 when he appeared before the I.O. for investigation he contends that this shows that the police had not found him involved in the occurrence. Pointing out that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and only some photographs were recovered from his house in his absence which were also not sealed, he contends that the identification of such photo is not of much significance. He refers to the letter written by the injured herself to the S.R on 30.4.97.
(2.) The learned PP on the other hand relying on the statements of Mohd. Shaqil recorded on 20.9.98 and the statements of Rajendra Singh and Pushpa Johari opposes the application.
(3.) I have gone through the documents and the statements of the witnesses referred to during arguments. It is not proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Having considered the submissions and the entire material on record, I think it a fit case in which the petitioner Firozuddin should be released on bail.;