Y.K.SANGAL,J. - (1.) THIS is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant Ram Siya Pal, involved in case crime no.312 of 2008,.under Section.364 IPC,.P.S. Shajahanpur, District Jhansi.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A and perused the record. As per prosecution case in the night of 10/11/-5-2008 brother of the informant was dis-appeared .A report regarding his missing was lodged on 11.5.2008 at about 4.30 P.M. Later on, on 30.5.2008, one unknown person met with the informant and made a demand of Rs. 9,00000/ ( Nine lac) as ransom to release his brother. He informed the police, accordingly the case was converted under section 364 IPC. Investigation started, raid was arranged by the police independent witnesses were taken and raid was made and abductee Pramod Kumar Mishra was found in the grip of the applicant and others. After using required force and firing shots in the air, five persons including applicant were apprehended on the spot and four persons succeeded in escaping from there. Abductee was released from their grip and after collecting the evidence and after completing the investigation, accused persons were challaned to face trial under section 364 IPC. Applicant claims his false implication due to enmity and itwas argued that no independent witness of the recovery and of police encounter is there no demand of rupees nine lacs was made, story set up is concocted and he has no criminal history. P.W. -2 Pramod Kumar Mishra abductee has not named him in his statement on oath before the court and co-accused Kadoria Dhimar was also released on bail under the order of this court dated 21.1.2009. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant and no recovery was made from his possession. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by one Dev Dayal annexing a copy of the statement of Pramod Kumar Mishra, said to have been recorded in Session Trial No. 348 of 2008 State Vs. Lakhan in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi .
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A argued that the certified copy of the statement not filed and it is not clear from the supplementary affidavit that the person who filed this affidavit, said to be the Pairopkar how he is related with the accused . No parcha pairvi of the case was also filed to support the fact that he is the pairopkar of the case.;