1. The arguments- of learned counsel for the applicant were head on 16-4-1995. Today, the arguments of the learned A.A.-G for the State have also been heard and concluded.
2. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are that the applicant/accused was arrested on 28-1-1995 and there is no identification. His third contention is that the recovery is from the house of the father of the accused and the recovery was only of cash, as such, he is entitled for the bail. He has also cited rulings such as 1995 PLJ 97 and 1985 M LD 1326 on the point of identification parade and 1988 PCr.LJ 1696 on the point of cash recovery.
3. State counsel had requested for adjournment on 16-4-1995 for summoning the Investigating Officer and to have the report as to in how many cases the present applicant/accused is involved The report shows that the present applicant /accused is also involved in 8 other cases of the same nature. At the time of arrest, there was a recovery of a Mouzer and a Suzuki bearing A No.Z 0187 which is stated to be involved in this crime. There is recovery of Rs.7,000 of this crime, and according to the learned A.A.-G., the accused has led the police and has pointed out the house of this crime from where they had committed the dacoity. There is also recovery of Rs.4,000 which is booty of dacoity of M/s Shakeel Express and also Rs.3,000 which were looted from a petrol pump so also Rs.11,050, which were looted from Clifton Post Office, in all Rs.25,050, was recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused, which is the booty of dacoity as stated above. The accused has been challaned. The recovery, according to learned A.A.-G., is a circumstantial evidence and falls under section 412, P.P.C. Which falls within the prohibitory clause.
4. Since the applicant/accused is involved in as many as 9 heinous crimes, I am, therefore, not inclined to grant him bail at this stage. This application is accordingly rejected.