Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Jitendra with a prayer that that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2006 under Sections 302, 201, I.P.C. and 3 (2) (5), S.C./S.T. (P.A. Act), P.S. Hapur Dehat, district Ghaziabad. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Harphool Jatav on 19.9.2006 at about 6.50 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.9.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. The applicant and co-accused Monu (Yatendra Sharma) are named in F.I.R. as accused. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused went to the house of the deceased on 15.9.2006 at 9.00 a.m. at their saying the deceased Mahendra Jatav went in their company but did not return till late night, thereafter the search was made, the applicant was also contacted to know the whereabouts of the deceased but his behaviour was suspicious. During investigation the applicant was arrested by the police on 19.9.2006. He made confessional statement before the police, at his pointing out the dead body of the deceased was recovered. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received one ante mortem injury and duration of the death was about 3 to 5 days old, his post mortem was done on 20.9.2006.
(2.) HEARD Sri Mangala Prasad Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Moti Lal and Smt. Meera, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The F.I.R. is delayed by four days without having any plausible explanation, there is no direct eye-witness account. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution version the evidence of the last seen and recovery of the dead body at the pointing out of the applicant is against him. The recovery of the dead body is not supported by any independent witness, the same has been planted. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent, he is innocent, he may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the deceased went in the company of the applicant, at his instance and at the pointing out of the applicant dead body was recovered from a well after removing mud. The recovery was made in the presence of the first informant of this case. The chain of circumstance is complete. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant 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 application is rejected.;