Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Devendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2006 under Sections 376, 302 and 201, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Dehat district Bulandshahr.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Virendra Pal Singh on 28.7.2006 at about 4.05 p.m., that the dead body of the deceased in a naked condition was lying in the water of a pit. During investigation the statement of Ramvir, Suresh were recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who stated that the applicant was catching the hand of the deceased Km. Mangli and the witness Rajvir and Rajesh stated that they saw the applicant coming out of from the field where the offence was committed, alongwith the clothes, and at the pointing out of the applicant the clothes (shalwar and kurta) of the deceased were recovered and one Nada (belt) of shalwar was recovered from the spot at the instance of the applicant, THE deceased had received six ante-mortem injuries. THE cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, 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 that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable. There is no direct eye-witness account and there is no evidence of rape. The naming of the applicant is afterthought and the recovery of the clothes have been planted by the police, which is not supported by any independent witness. The applicant was arrested in the night of 29/30.8.2006, a telegram in this regard was sent to the S.S.P., Bulandshahr on 30.8.2006, but the arrest and recovery of the applicant has been shown on 31.9.2006, which belies the whole prosecution story. The applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by the witness as suspected accused. The applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(3.) IN reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant to show his involvement in the present case. The clothes of the deceased were recovered at the pointing of the applicant. There is no reason of his false implication. The gravity of the offence is too much. IN case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. In view of 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 gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.;