THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLHABAD,

LUCKNOW BENCH , LUCKNOW.

Criminal Misc. Case no. (B) of 2013

Anil Kumar aged about 31 yeas son of Sri Gauri Sankar resident of Village-
Bhagamau, Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow .

--------------Petitioner.

Versus

State of U.P. Opposite Party

Crime no. 148/2012U/S- 392/411 I.P.C

P.S. – Nagram District- Lucknow
Bail Application No. 4374/2012
Order dated -20.10.2012 passed
By the Learned Session Judge Lucknow

AFFIDAVIT ITS SUPPORT OF BAIL APPLICATION

I, Gyanu , aged about 42 years, son of Sri Gauri Sankar resident of

Village- Bhagamau, Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow . The

deponent belong to Hindu community and he is doing private Job, the

deponent do here by affirm solemnly and state on oath as under :-

1. The deponent is the real brother of the accused/ applicant and doing

pairavi of the case and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of

thecase deposed here as under .

2.That the accused/applicant is in jail since in 28.09.2012 in connection

with the case crime no. 148/2012 Under Section 392/411 I.P.C. P. S.

Nagram, District – Lucknow .

3.That the first information report was lodge on 28.09.2012 at 11:30

A.M. by one Sri Kailash Yadav against the applicant and one co-accused

Munna and two nuknow person with regards to the applicant

committed robbery of Rs 17.14.500/ the true typed copy of first

information Report dated 28.09.2012 is being filed here with as

Annexure no. 1 to this affidavit.

4.That from perusal of the first information report would show that the

content of the first information repot that the prosecution story is

totally false of fabricated cooked by the complaint because the

complainant and applicant are partner for land sell and purchase.

5.That it relevant to mention here that the applicant never committed

robbery from complainant but he has falsely implicated to the applicant

in the aforesaid case crime.

6.That according to the prosecution story the recovery of Rs 17.14.500/-

has been made from the possession of the applicant on same day at
 13:25. The true electrostat copy of the recoverymemo is being is

filedhere with as Annexure no.2 to this affidavit.

7.that from perusal of the aforesaid recovery memo would show that

the number of rupees packet which was mentioned in recovery memo

by the investigating officer are only Rs 16,93,500/-but he has

mentionedin recovery memo that the recovered amount is Rs

17,14,500/-and the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated

cooked by the complaninant.

8.That as per the best knowledge of the deponent is that the some

dispute the complainant and applicant are the sale and purchase the

property together divide gain profit half –half.

9.That the recovery which was shown by the police in which the Rs
8,50,000/- was the applicant as he arrange the money Rs. 6,50,000/-
from on jag jeevan by executed an agreement on 22.09.2012 and Rs
2,00000/- from himself. The true electrostate copy of the agreement
dated 22.09.2012 is being filed here with as Annexure no.3 to this
affidavit .

10. That the applicant is also moved an objection on 05.102012 on the

applicant for release the recovered money moved by the complainant
before the court concerned. The true electrostate copy of the objection
application dated 05.10.2012 is beings filed here with as Annexure
no.4 to this affidavit,

11. That from above facts no case is made out against the accused/
applicant for the offences alleged.

12. That the applicant is not previous convict and he has having no
criminal history.

13. That the applicant is ready to file the bail bonds and securities.

14. That the applicant will not misuse the liberty of the bail granted by
this Hon’ ble Court.
15.That there is no question for tempering the witness if the applicant
will released on bail if granted by this Hon’ble Court

16. That this is the first application for bail on behalf of the applicant
and no any other bail application is pending or filed except the present
bail application.

17.That the learned session judge, Lucknow has rejected the application
for bail of the applicant on 20.10.2012 the certified copy of the bail
rejection order dated 20.10.2012.passsed by the Learned session judge
Lucknow is being file here with as Annexure no.5 to this affidavit.

Lucknow Deponent

Dated:
 Verification

I , the deponent , named above do here by verify that the contents of

paragraph 1to 7of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge, no part of it is false and I have concealed nothing
material

So help me God. Deponent

Lucknow

Dated.

I, identify the deponent named

Here by above who has signed?

Before me. I personally know to him .

Ravi Singh

Advocate

4825/13 of 2013
R/O L-2/863 Vinay Khand Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow

Mob.No.9721080480

Solemnly affirmed and verified on …………….at……..A.M.P.M

by Gyanu the deponent who has been identified by sir Ravi Singh Advocate.

I have satisfied by myself by examining the deponent this affidavit, which

were

readout and explained to him by me.

Oath Commissioner