19 ba 1003 of 2024.doc visited the house of the complainant on 16/03/2014. As far as accused no. 1 is concerned, there is recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of the accused no.1. Complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that there was theft of Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- from his house. Moreover, original accused no. 1 has criminal antecedents and therefore, police had apprehended him on suspicion and in the course of inquiry, he had admitted to have committed an offence and there was recovery of the sum of Rs. 50,000/- from his house which established a nexus of the accused no. 1 with the alleged incident. However, as far as the case of the present applicant is concerned, compilation of the charge-sheet does not have any document to indicate any link evidence against the present applicant, except the statement of the coaccused. Upon perusal of the said statement, it cannot be said even at this stage that the said statement could be considered under section 30 of the Evidence Act since accused no. 1 has only disclosed that he was accompanied by present applicant. At this stage, it would not be proper to consider the said statement of the co-accused which is recorded while in custody, to connect the present applicant with the present applicant with the said offence. Learned APP has fairly submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.”
