The decision emphasizes the importance of direct evidence and the absence of incriminating factors in considering bail applications in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant o f bail. applicant Jatin Soni @ Bholu was arrested on 30/10/2021 in connection with Crime No.327/2021 registered at Police Station Jaithri, Distt. anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395, 120-B, 201, 109, 114, 427 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution case, on 28/10/2021, complainant Gaurav Jain lodged a report at PS Jaithari, Distt. anuppur averring that he lives in Cinema Road Budhar and works as a jeweller, Ravi Kumar Mishra works at his house and Hiralal @ Monu Mehra is his driver. He was going from Raipur to Budhar in his car, on the way around 13:50 pm, when he reached near Kadamsara Rani Talab temple, a white coloured Scorpio car came from behind without number plate and the driver of the Scorpio Vehicle dashed against his car, on which his driver Hiralal parked his car, then the driver of the Scorpio Vehicle parked his vehicle in front of his car. Four miscreants who covered their faces with cloth got down from the Scorpio vehicle, one of them broke the glass of the car with a stick and they assaulted driver Hiralal. They abused him and looted his purse containing Rs.7-8 thousand and a bag containing jewellery worth Rs.3 lac and fled away from the spot. On that, police registered Crime No.327/2021 at Police Station Jaithri, Distt. anuppur for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and investigated the matter. During the investigation, it was found that applicant Jatin Soni @ Bholu in connivance with co-accused Rohit Pathak, Yashpal, aadarsh Mishra, Rahul @ Ramakant Tiwari and driver Hiralal had made a plan to commit loot with Gaurav Soni and in furtherance of that plan applicant and co-accused Yashpal, aadarsh Mishra, Rahul @ Ramakant Tiwari and Rohit Pathak committed loot with him. On that, police arrested the applicant and other co-accused persons and seized the looted jewellery, currency note and other articles.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. Police did not get test identification parade conducted. The police only on the basis of memorandum of applicant and co-accused implicated the applicant with the crime, while the confessional statement of applicant and co-accused to the police cannot be accepted as legal evidence against the applicant in the absence of any other incriminating piece of evidence. The applicant has been in custody since 30/10/2021 and the conclusion of the trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant was also involved in the crime. So, he should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, police did not get TIP conducted, no looted property was recovered from the possession of applicant, applicant is in custody since 30.10.2021 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in