G.P. Srivastva, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
(2.) According to the prosecution case one Sri Kedar Nath Agrawal on 24.7.05 along with his wife Suit. Sushila Agrawal were abducted in the morning when they had gone for morning walk. The abductors left the wife of Kedar Nath Agrawal in the way and went away with the abductee Kedar Nath Agrawal on his Maruti Zen. What happened thereafter is that the wife of Kedar Nath Agrawal informed her son on phone. A Police vehicle was found parked on the road being perturbed the culprits dashed the vehicle to a wall consequently it fell in the mud. The village people saw the vehicle and reached there. On seeing the village people the culprits fled away but they were chased by the village people. A police party also reached there. In the encounter three culprits were shot dead and two were able to escape. A village people also died in the occurrence. The complicity of the applicant was revealed during investigation. The abductee Smt. Sushila Agrawal and Kedar Nath Agrawal have in their statement told that the applicant was present along with three persons who fled away. Kedar Nath Agrawal had identified the applicant when he was arrested on 6.8.05.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the brother of the applicant has enmity with the Inspector who arrested the applicant and the wife of the applicant sent information through telegram to S.S.P. Varanasi, D.I.G. Varanasi, Human Right Commission, New Delhi and President of India. The argument of the learned Counsel that the Inspector of Police had enmity with the brother of the applicant cannot be a reason to falsely implicate the applicant specially when the abductees have identified him. The telegrams allegedly given prior to arrest shows that the applicant was conscious of his complicity in the offence I do not think that there is any good ground to grant bail. The bail application is rejected.;