ROBBERY (SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT)

Ali                            Versus                      the State

00.00.2012

Present       :          learned counsel for the  petitioner.

                             DDPP for the state.

                             Petitioner has applied his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 00/00 dated 00.00.2012 for the offence u/s 392/411 PPC registered at P.S ( name of the police station and city)  with the allegation of committing robbery with the complainant and others.   

                             I have heard the arguments and have perused the record.

                            Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner is not named in the FIR which was registered with a delay of 05 days. No identification parade was got held and the petitioner was implicated in this case through a supplementary statement. The mode and manner in which the complainant and Pws identified the petitioner in the lock of the police creates doubt regarding the authenticity of supplementary statement and allied proceedings. The perusal of the record indicates that the supplementary statement recorded by the I.O does not bear any date. It is an established law that supplementary statement is not substitute of identification parade and if any doubt is arisen out of the proceedings even at bail stage its benefit has to be extended in favour of the accused. At present, the only evidence against the petitioner which is of convince nature is the recovery of motorcycle which prima facie attract offence u/s 411 PPC and maximum punishment of the same is three years. Case against the petitioner requires further probe, therefore, application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the tune of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Area Magistrate. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.

Announced:

00.00.0000

             Addl. Sessions Judge

   (name of the City)