- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Jagga alias Jagdish with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 657 of 2005 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B I. P. C. P. S. Hafeez Ganj District Bareilly.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that information of this case has been given by Satya Pal Singh on 6-9- 2005 at 3. 30 a. m. alleging therein that his son the deceased Aditya alias Rajat Gangwar aged about 12 years thereafter he has gone to his house from the shop at about 6. 30 p. m. on 5-9-2005. THEreafter, the first informant's elder son Bhupendra Gangwar came at the shop on 5-9-2005 at about 8. 00 p. m. and informed that the deceased had not reached to his house, then extensive search was made but the deceased could not be traced. Its information was given to the Police Station. THEreafter, on 7-5-2006 a detail F. I. R. has been lodged by the first informant Satya Pal Singh alleging therein that after giving information of missing to the Police Station concerned on 6-9-2005 the first informant was busy in searching the deceased then on 7-9-2005 Lakhan Singh and Kedar Nath met him and disclosed that on 5- 9-2005 at about 7. 00 p. m. they saw the deceased in a white Maruti Car alongwith the applicant and co- accused Prem Prakash going towards Bareily. THE mother and wife of the co-accused Prem Prakash are a believer of Tutka, Tona and Bali. So it is believed that his son has been murdered because the family members of the co-accused Prem Prakash were missing from their house by locking the same. THEreafter, the applicant and the co-accused Prem Prakash were arrested, they confessed before the police about the commission of the alleged offence and at their pointing out the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the bushes on 7-9-2005 at about 12. 30 p. m. THE dead-body was identified by the first informant, brother of the deceased and other persons, the proceedings of recovery of dead- body were prepared by the Station Officer of P. S. concerned in the presence of the public witnesses. According to the post-mortem Examination Report, the deceased had received three ante-mortem injuries. THE duration of the death was 1-2 days. THE post-mortem Examination was done on 7-9-2005 at about 3. 00 p. m. and according to the prosecution version. THE deceased was missing from 5-9-2005 at about 6. 30 p. m. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Roshan Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: (1) That on 6-9-2005 the report of missing was lodged by the first informant at the Police Station concerned and on 7-9-2005 a detail F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and other co-accused, the applicant was not named in the report of missing lodged on 6-9-2005. (2) That according to that F. I. R. the deceased was seen alongwith the applicant and other co-accused person in a Maruti Car going towards Bareilly, its is a last seen evidence. There is no direct eye-witness account and nobody has seen the manner in which the deceased was murdered (3) That the next allegation against the applicant is that at the pointing out of the applicant and the co- accused Prem Prakash the dead-body was recovered from the bushes but the evidence of recovery at the joint pointing out is not admissible and the recovery was from an open place having easy access to all the witness of the recovery are highly interested as such are not reliable. (4) That the allegation, that the F. I. R. was lodged by the first informant on 7-9-2005 at 12. 30 p. m. and the dead-body of the deceased was allegedly recovered on the same day at about 3. 30 p. m. , is not reliable because the dead-body was recovered first thereafter the F. I. R. was lodged at the Police Station and the proceedings of recovery were concocted by the Police. (5) There is no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of doubt and suspicion and due to some local party bandi. (6) That in the present case the co-accused Om Prakash has also been implicated by the Police, who has been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1373 of 2006. In reply to the above contentions the learned A. G. A. submits: (1) That the deceased was kidnapped by the applicant and other co-accused persons for the purposes of Bali, which was planned by the applicant and other co-accused persons. (2) That the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant and other co-accused Prem Prakash when he was taken by a maruti car and at their pointing out the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the bushes at a long distance from the road, which was not an open place and the recovery was made in the presence of the public witnesses. (3) That there was a strong motive for the applicant and other co-accused and the chain of circumstances is complete against the applicant.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and considering the nature of the offence which is grave and the allegation that an innocent boy aged about 12 years has been kidnapped only for the purposes of Bali and who has been murdered and his dead-body has been concealed in the bushes, the same has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and other co-accused, for consideration of bail the broad features of the case are given in importance rather then the minute scrutiny the material collected/evidence. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Om Prakash, real brother of the co-accused Prem Prakash, who has been released by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1373 of 2006, because the deceased was not seen in the company of the co- accused Om Prakash by any witness and the dead-body of the deceased was also not recovered on his pointing out and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this bail application is rejected. Application rejected. .;