It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The informant has given statement that he had given gold bricks and ornaments to his father, the deceased on the date of incident, while in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he has given currency of note of Rs. 100/-, 200/- and 500/-, therefore alleged recovery of gold bricks is false and fabricated. As per the version of the FIR, the deceased Sanjiv Garg, the father of the informant Shubham Garg went for his factory at Parsa Khera, Road No. 4, Bareilly, but he did not return on 20.01.2022. During investigation, the present applicant and other co-accused were arrested and from the possession of the present applicant, three bricks of gold weighing 3 Kgs, gold chain, gold bangle and one Mangalsutra weighing about 69 gms and cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lac only) were alleged to be recovered. It is further argued that the aforesaid articles were not taken away by the deceased when he left his house. The informant Shubham Garg in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not utter about even a single word that when his father left his house, he was having such articles and cash amount, therefore the alleged recovery of gold and ornaments is not connected. It is next submitted that the entire investigation is only based upon the confessional statement of the applicant. The recovery of iron rod made on
