- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This appli cation has been filed by the applicant Javed Ali with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 654 of 2007 under sections 302 and 201 IPC, P. S. Tilhar, Dis trict Shahjahanpur.
(2.) HEARD Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for the complain ant. From the perusal of the record it appears that FIR of this case has been lodged by Mohd. Ashif on 8. 11. 2007 at 10. 20 P. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8. 11. 2007 at about 3. 00 P. M. The FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants alleging therein that, the de ceased Mohd. Farman Ali was kidnapped, his whereabouts could not be traced out, the kidnapee boy was aged about six years. But during investigation Mohd. Asif, the first informant of this case stated that the deceased was missing from 8. 11. 2007, on 9. 11. 2007 a telephonic message was re ceived into, the demand of Rs. Six lacs was made. It has come in evidence that the per son who demanded the money was the applicant, he was identified by his voice. During investigation the evidence of last seen has also been collected by the I. O. The kidnapped boy was seen in the company of the applicant by the witnesses and the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the pointing out of the other co-accused. It is contended that at the pointing out of the co-accused Mohd. Saleem, Soyab @ Munna, Mohd. Islam @ Bablu one sim and two mobiles were recovered. No such recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant whereas the applicant is resident of same Mohalla. There is no other evi dence against the applicant. Applicant has been named only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. The applicant has been falsely implicated only because the applicant's sister has been married with co-accused Mohd. Saleem. In reply of the above submission it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in this case a boy has been killed, the amount of ransom has not been paid, the applicant has been identified by his voice because he was known to the first informant and others prior the alleged incident, he is residing at the same locality and the boy of six years old has been killed. The chain of the cir cumstance is complete, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts, circum stances of the case, submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complain ant, considering the gravity of the offence which is too much 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. Application Rejected. .;