- (1.) COUNTER affidavit filed on behalf of complainant which is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant.
(3.) PERUSED the record. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that after the alleged kidnapping of the first informant's son, it appears from the record that a series of applications were moved by the first informant which were addressed to different higher authorities including the Circle Officer, S.S.P., I.G., D.I.G. and District Magistrate etc. But in none of such applications, either the applicant has been named nor has any suspicion been shown against him. Counsel has drawn the attention of the court to various such previous applications which have been annexed along with the bail application. Further submission is that the incident is said to have taken place on 27.5.2010 but for the first time on 4.11.2010 in an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. the name of the applicant surfaced as an accused. Submission is that there is inordinate delay on the part of the first informant in disclosing the complicity of accused in the crime or to disclose even a suspicion on him and this procrastination speaks volumes about the falsity of the allegation made against the applicant accused. Further submission is that this prolonged non -disclosure detracts very substantially from the testimonial worth of first informant and also demonstratively shows the hollowness of the claim made by the first informant and other witnesses that they had witnessed the allegedly kidnapped victim for the last time along with the applicant or that the applicant was ever seen carrying the victim Nazeem along with him. Even the so called witnesses other than the first informant, too could not offer any credible explanation for their prolonged reticence in this regard and who have introduced themselves as witnesses of the last seen after a yawning gap of several months after the disappearance of the missing kidnapee. The contention is that there is no earthly explanation for the aforesaid prolix non -disclosure by witnesses which sufficiently proves that the allegations against applicant are all false and fabricated and are the result of malice, concert and deliberation. The applicant is in jail since 12.2.2015. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial;