AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 238 wordsA. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order as well as statement of the applicant.
It is a case where as per allegation of the prosecution mobile coupons and rupees twenty thousand cash were looted, FIR was lodged against unknown person, during the course of investigation the applicant was apprehended and on his statement one Vikas Gupta was arrested from whose possession those simcoupons were recovered.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that recovery was made from Vikas Gupta no doubt on the statement of the applicant, but nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant and said Vikas Gupta has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 951 (B) of 2009 (Annexure5 to the bail application). Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that case of the present applicant lies on better footings since nothing is said to have been recovered from his possession.
Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Abdul Kadir, accused of Crime No. 342 of 2008, under Sections 392, 411 and 120B IPC, police station Sandi, district Hardoi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.