The main legal point established is that the absence of evidence, lack of identification parade, and no recovery of stolen properties can influence the grant of bail under section 439, Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) -ALL these three bail applications No. 2196/87. (Rajendra and another v. State), and No. 2302/87 (Keshav Dev and others v. State), and No. 2722/1987 (Devendra Kumar and another v. State), are related to one incident the case of which has been registered at police station Todabhim against the present seven petitioners for the offences under sections 395 and 397, I. P. C. Hence these applications are disposed of by a single order.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners were arrested and were taken into custody on the next day of the occurrence and that too, about 10-15 kms. away from the place of occurrence. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused-applicants were taken into custody at the spot, learned members of the Bar added.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are not known to the prosecution witnesses. Even after the arrest of the accused petitioners, no identification parade has been conducted by the investigating agency learned counsel challan against the accused-petitioners has been filed. Therefore, learned counsel contended that this is a case of no evidence.

( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor though vehemently opposed the bail application but admitted that in the instant case, challan has been filed against all the accused-applicants and no identification parade has been conducted. Learned P. P. admitted that no recovery of stolen properties is made at the instance of the accused-petitioners.

( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the points raised by both the sides and perused the case diary. While deciding these bail applications, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept all these bail applications and grant these bail applications under section 439, Cr. P. C. of petitioners.

( 6 ) IT is, therefore, ordered that the accused-petitioners, Rajendra, Radhey Shyam, Keshav Dev, Kartar Singh, Anesh sb Sirraj Pd. , Devendra Kumar and Narottam Singh be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10. 000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to no so during the pendency of the trial against each of them in this case.