Bail is unjustified when there is prima facie evidence linking the accused to a serious crime, particularly in the context of an illegal arms syndicate.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 499/2020 under Section 25 Arms Act registered at PS Kalyan Puri.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in the above-noted FIR on 30th November, 2020 since when he is in custody and charge-sheet has since been filed. All the witnesses to the alleged recovery are Police witnesses. Hence there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. In any case the offence alleged is at best punishable up to three years imprisonment and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, thus the petitioner be released on bail. The Trial Court is yet to take cognizance of the charge-sheet dated 25th January, 2021 for the reason the FSL report and the sanction has not been received as yet. Neither the arrest of the petitioner nor the alleged recovery was made in the presence of independent witnesses. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Santosh which is inadmissible in evidence and certainly a weaker type of evidence. The arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the petitioner were deposited in malkhana on 30th November, 2020 vide the number bearing 2250/2020 whereas the alleged recovery from the main accused Santosh and Om Sharan @ Nanhe who were arrested on 28th November, 2020 were deposited vide the number 2256/2020 at Kalyan Puri; hence there is interpolation in the record. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI. Even in the other cases pending in Uttar Pradesh where the petitioner has been falsely implicated, the petitioner has been released on bail. The petitioner is willing and ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court. The prosecution case is highly improbable as the claim of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been arrested from Uttar Pradesh, however the vehicle apprehended bears the registration number of Haryana. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized, however the same was not sent to FSL for forensic analysis. There are material contradictions in the case of the prosecution as in the charge-sheet it is stated that the petitioner was arrested from near Railway Road Tundla, however in the status report it is stated that the petitioner was arrested from Agra.

3. State has filed number of status report in response to the present petition and learned APP for the State has taken this Court to the Status reports. Learned APP for the State contends that in view of the large quantities of the arms and ammunitions recovered from the petitioner and the co-accused as also the earlier involvements of the petitioner, as the petitioner is a history-sheeter and if released on bail is likely to commit the same offence again, bail be not granted to the petitioner. It is contended that the discrepancies pointed out are not material and have to be considered at the stage of trial after the witnesses are examined. Further, the case properties recovered were deposited in malkhana of Kalyan Puri and entries in this regard have been made in the register No.19. The recoveries from the three accused made on two different dates i.e. 28th November, 2020 and 30th November, 2020 have been reflected as separate entries. The recoveries made were sent to the FSL Rohini for ballistic examination on 9December, 2020 vide the road certificate copies whereof have also been attached. The petitioner was arrested from Railway Road Tundla, U.P. on 30th November, 2020 which is situated in Agra region, that is why even though in the arrest memo it has been noted that the arrest is from Railway Road Tundla, U.P., however while preparing the status report it is noted Agra.

4. The above-noted FIR was registered on 28th November, 2020 when an information was received by H.C. Bakar Raza that one Santosh who hailed from Etah District