Point of law : Offence of Robbery - Bail rejected - Applicant is a repeated offender and has a long criminal history of 17 cases - Rights of accused are important, but equally important is societal interest for bringing offender to book and for system to send right message to all in society. Undue sympathy for offender would be more harm to justice system to undermine public confidence in efficacy of law

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief holder appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. through video conferencing and perused the record of the case.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 466 of 2020, under Section 392, 411 I.P.C. Police Station-Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, facts of the case in brief are that on 04.10.2020 informant Smt. Pushpa Devi lodged F.I.R. at 16:40 O'clock as Case Crime No. 466 of 2020 at P.S. Panki, District-Kanpur City with regard to an incident that took place on 04.10.2020 at 12:30 p.m. against two unknown persons for the offence of robbery under 392 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that on 04.10.2020 she along with her daughter Sunita Jain and daughter-in-law Priti Gupta had left her house for Rambagh by auto-rickshaw No. U.P. 78 CT 3306. Thereafter they reached near power house market, where her daughter got an autorickshaw stopped and went to purchase fruits. Meanwhile the auto-rickshaw driver went to take pan masala. At that time she along with her daughter-in-law were sitting in the auto rickshaw. At the same time two bike-borne men approached their auto-rickshaw on Apache motorcycle from Kalyanpur side. The person sitting behind the rider on the motorcycle had covered his face and before she could understand something, they fled towards Panki temple snatching her gold chain.

4. It is also the case of prosecution that on 21.10.2020 police apprehended two persons, namely Amit (applicant) and co-accused Kundan using necessary force near Central School and recovered four chains of yellow metal and rupees two thousand from their possession. It is also stated that at the time police tried to apprehend them, they fired at the police personal by country made pistol. They were asked to surrender themselves but they again started loading their pistol, then the police personnel in their self defence also fired upon the accused persons under compelling circumstances, which hit the accused on their legs. On frisking them, two chains of yellow metal, an amount of rupees one thousand, one country made pistol of 315 bore, one live cartridge of 315 bore and one empty cartridge which was lying at the spot were recovered from the possession of applicant Amit and two chain of yellow metal, one thousand rupees, one country made pistol of 315 bore, one live cartridge of 315 bore and one empty cartridge which was lying at the spot were recovered from the possession of co-accused Kundan. Thereafter separate F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 0063 of 2020, under Section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant and co-accused Kundan at P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur City connecting the applicant with present Case Crime No. 466 of 2020 as well as in case crime no. 257 of 2020 and 258/2020 under Section 392 I.P.C. registered at police station Najirabad, district Kanpur City.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that police after apprehending falsely implicated the applicant in six cases (crime no. 63 of 2020 under Section 307 I.P.C. crime no. 64 of 2020 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, crime no. 481 0f 2020 under Section 392, 411 I.P.C. crime no. 737 of 2020 under Section 392, 411 I.P.C. crime no. 257 of 2020 under Section 392, 411 I.P.C. and crime no. 258 of 2020 under Section 392, 411 I.P.C.) out of which applicant has been granted bail in three cases being case crime numbers 63 of 2020, 481of 2020 and 737 of 2020 by orders dated 04.12.2020, 15.12.2020 and 11.12.2020 of the concerned court below. It is next submitted that false recovery has been shown from the possession of applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. In paragraph no. 12 of the bail application it is mentioned that the applicant has a criminal history of 11 c