Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of recovery of certain incriminating material, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The next contention is that the appellant is not named in the FIR and during the investigation, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of two "respectable persons" of the society, recorded on 08.06.2020 and 09.06.2020, they have revealed that, the appellant has approached him and confessed his guilt before them namely Satish Pradhan and Hamza. The next contention is that on 11.06.2020, the police has recovered the motorcycle, mobile phone and a tiffin from the joint possession of Mohsin, Salman@Lullu and Adil(appellant). This is on the joint pointing out of all the three persons, the said recovery is effected. It was sheer providence that the appellant was sitting on the motorcycle as one of the three pillion rider. The alleged story shared with the police is having no evidentiary value. So far as the criminal antecedents of five cases are concerned, after lodging of the present FIR, the police has fastened the case of gangster act. Prior to this, three other cases are of the year 2018 in which the appellant has already been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that it is a handy work of police who pasted the present case against the appellant. Thus, the only evidence against the applicant is alleged recovery of tiffin, motorcycle and mobile. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2020.
