- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Kalua with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 31 of 2007 under sections 302,364-A and 201 IPC, P. S. Jagner, District Agra.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Vinod Kumar Sharma on 8. 2. 2007 at 0. 15 A. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 30. 1. 2007 at about 6. 00 P. M. THE applicant is named in the FIR. It is alleged that the son of the first informant namely Rahul aged about 18 years was kidnapped for the purpose of ransom ultimately he was killed. THE dead body of the deceased has been recovered at the pointing of the applicant and other co-accused. THE cause of death was due to suffocation because of ante-mortem injuries. THE applicant applied for bail before learned Special Judge, D. A. A. Agra, who rejected the same on 10. 10. 2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 10. 10. 2007 the present bail application has been moved by the applicant. Heard Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present F. I. R. is delayed by two days. There is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F. I. R. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is named only on the basis of doubt and suspicion because he was friend of the deceased and the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant when they were going towards the road. The allegation that the deceased was kidnapped, thereafter demand of Rs. Two lacs was made by the miscreants on a telephone, the sound was appeared as of applicant. It can not be a credible evidence against the applicant. There is no eyewitness account and no transaction of ransom has taken place. But during investigation the I. O. arrested the applicant on the basis of information given by the Mukhbir and recorded the statement of the applicant, in which he confessed that he along with co-accused Vinod, Omkar and Bhola kidnapped the deceased for realizing the ransom. Thereafter the co-accused Vinod Thakur, Omkar and Bhola were also arrested by the police on 8. 2. 2007 at 1. 45 P. M. the alleged confessional statement in fact has not been made by the applicant, it has been recorded by the I. O. according to his desire. Subsequent recovery of the dead body at the pointing out of the applicant and three other co-accused persons is also planted. It is having no evidential value because the recovery has been made at the joint pointing out of the applicant and other co-accused persons. The alleged recovery has not been supported by any independent witness. It is alleged that the dead body was recovered after digging at about 3. 40 P. M. from the field, it was an open place. It is further contended that the recovery of scarf (Angauchha) has also been planted by the I. O. the alleged scarf was used in the commission of the murder of the deceased. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstance is not complete. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent. He may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is contended by learned A. G. A. that applicant is not named in the F. I. R. , he was seen in the company of the deceased, he demanded Rs. Two lacs as a ransom on a telephone, his voice was identified by the first informant. The dead body of the deceased has been taken out from a pit by the applicant and other co-accused person after digging mud and the scarf used in the commission of the alleged offence has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The chain of the circumstance is complete, therefore the applicant may not be released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submission made of learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence but chain of the circumstance is complete, the deceased was kidnapped the applicant and other co-accused for the purpose of ransom, demand of ransom was made, on non fulfillment of demand of ransom the deceased was killed, the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and other co-accused and one scarf used in the commission of alleged offence was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, gravity of offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Bail Rejected. .;