The court considered the lack of disclosure in the FIR, inconsistencies in the co-accused statements, and the absence of criminal history in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2023, under Section 392, 120-B IPC, Police Station Laliya, District Balrampur.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 16.05.2023 stating that the informant had came to his home from Delhi on 20.04.2023 and he had brought Rs. 15,50,000/-cash for purchasing an agricultural land. He had received a phone call for levelling his field and the persons had levelled his field in the evening of 23.04.2023. Those persons, whose number has not been disclosed in the FIR, came to the informant's house on 24.04.2023 to collect their remuneration and they robbed Rs. 15,50,000/-.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that he has no previous criminal history.

5. A copy of the statement of co-accused Shamshad has been annexed with the affidavit, wherein he stated that he and the applicant had prepared a plan for commission of the offence and Resham Ali, Paigam, Usman and Ashiq had given effect to the incident.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that four co-accused persons have been granted bail in the present case.

7. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that Rs. 4,40,000/-have been recovered from the co-accused person, he has produced a copy of the recovery memo for perusal of the Court, wherein it is recorded that the informant had identified co-accused Usman and stated that he had come with two other persons who had committed the offence.

8. Learned AGA has further submitted that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him on 22.09.2023.

9. Replying to the aforesaid objections, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 25.08.2023 and thereafter notice of the present application was served in the office of the learned Additional Government Advocate on 26.09.2023.

10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant claims himself to be a retired government servant and it prima facie appears to be unreasonable that he had brought Rs. 15,50,000/-in cash for purchasing some property; that the FIR does not disclose the number of miscreants who had committed the offence; in the statement of the co-accused Shamshad, he stated that the applicant was involved in a conspiracy and the offence was committed by Resham Ali, Paigam, Usman and Ashiq whereas the recovery memo records that the informant stated that the incident was caused by three persons only, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and four co-accused persons have been granted bail in the present case, I am of the view that the instant application deserves to be allowed.

11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Dilshad before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(ii). That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from dis