JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan and Sri K.D Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Anees with the prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 418 of 2004 under Section 364 I.P.C. P.S. Pakbada district Muradabad.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Qamar Jahan on 17.7.2004 at 00.30 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 13.7.2004 at about 12 O'clock in day. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Kallu alias Usman.
4. According to prosecution version one Nadeem Ahmad aged about 4 years, son of the first informant, was kidnapped by the applicant and co-accused Kallu alias Usman because he was seen in their company. The cloths of Nadeem Ahmad were recovered by the police on 17.7.2004 from the mango garden. The cloths were identified by the first informant and her husband but the kidnapped boy has not been recovered till date.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the only evidence against the applicant is of the last seen and there is no other evidence against the applicant even nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no allegation in respect of the demand of ransom etc. and there is no other evidence except the confessional statement of the co-accused who has stated that the kidnapped child has been handed over for the purpose of Offering ( Bali)
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. He and the co-accused kidnapped the boy aged about 4 years. During the investigation it has come in evidence that the kidnapped boy was seen in the company of the applicant and other co-accused. It has also come in evidence that the kidnapped boy was handed over to the applicant for Offering( Bali) in lieu of which the applicant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.
7. All these facts are against the applicant. There is no doubt regarding the complicity of the applicant in the present crime. Charge sheet has been submitted against him. The applicant is a criminal and 11 criminal cases are pending against him.
8. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for. the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
9. Accordingly this bail application is rejected