1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that mobile phone, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner belongs to him; that it was not the said mobile phone which was snatched during the robbery; that the petitioner has also been falsely implicated in three other case of similar nature; that co-accused of the petitioner have granted bail by the learned Magistrate; that no case for offence under Section 392 PPC is made out against the petitioner; and that it is a case of further inquiry, which attracts the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
2. 2.Conversely learned DPG submits that the complainant had named the petitioner in his supplementary statement; that mobile phone, which has been identified by the complainant who is a doctor, has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner; that the petitioner is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature; and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
3. 3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 27.2.2007 on the same day the complainant in whose clinic robbery was committed, who is a doctor, made supplementary statement and implicated the petitioner. One mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the said mobile phone was his own phone but he had not produced any receipt in that regard. He is also involved in 3/4 other cases of similar nature. In such like cases i,e, robbery, dacotiy and car snatching the names of the culprits came on the record during investigation. The complainant has no malice against the petitioner. Such like cases are on peak in these days and one cannot be allowed to repeat the offence. In these circumstances, in case for grant of bail s made out. This petition stands dismissed.