- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THIS bail application has been moved by applicarit, Smt. Radha Rathaur with a prayer that she may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 566 of 2010, under sections 364, 302 and 201,1.P.C., Police Sta ­tion North (Uttar), District Firozabad. The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Mahen-dra Singh on 26.11.2010 in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 11.9.2010 at 11.50 A.M. It is alleged that there had been marpeat between the accused Smt. Radha Rathaur (sister-in-law of the first infor ­mant) and wife of the first informant. On account of this enmity accused Smt. Radha Rathaur got the deceased kidnapped through her brother accused Vijai Pal Ra-thore and one Yatendra Kumar. On 11.9.2010 when the deceased Pawan Kumar alias Dhasu aged about 7 years had gone to purchase toffee from a shop in the noon of 11.9.2010, he was enticed away by them, since then he is missing. The search was made but the deceased could not be traced out. In this respect, Vijendra Singh, brother of the first informant and Ramji lal ex ­tended threat that in case any legal action is taken, the first informant and his children would be killed. The accused Smt. Radha Rathaur is aunt of the deceased and ac ­cused Vijai Pal Rathore is the brother of accused Smt. Radha Rathaur. Due to family dispute, the son of the first informant, who was aged about 7 years, had been kid ­napped and killed. On the day of lodging of the F.I.R., all the three accused including the applicant were arrested and at their pointing out dead body of the deceased was taken out by digging earth from the house of one Murari lal Ojha in which the accused Yatendra Singh was residing as a tenant. The applicant applied for bail be ­fore the learned Sessions Judge, Firozabad who rejected the same on 5.2.2011.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of doubt and suspicion the applicant has been named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is delayed by 15 days. There is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. There is no eye witness account and there was no mo ­tive to commit the alleged offence. It is a case in which there is no allegation of ransom. The applicant is innocent. The dead body of the deceased has been shown re ­covered from the room of the accused Yatendra by digging the earth. The accused Yatendra was not owner of that house. The recovery has been planted, it was joint dis-closer allegedly made by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is not admissi ­ble in the eyes of law. Smt. Kamla Devi, the mother of the first informant had filed an affidavit against the prosecution story. There is no credible evidence to show the involvement of the applicant and the appli ­cant is not having any criminal antecedent, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.;