JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed by Arun Kumar Singh alias Veeru with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 81 of 2006 under Section 394, 302, 411, 120B I.P.C. P.S. Chhibramau district Kannauj.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. has been lodged by Sachin Singh, brother of the deceased at the police station Chhibramau on 26.1.2006 at 5.00 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 25/26.1.2006 at about 11.00 P.M., its F.I.R. was lodged under Section 396 I.P.C. against six unknown miscreants but during the investigation the case has been converted under Section 394, 302, 411, 120B I.P.C. It is alleged that six unknown miscreants armed with country made pistol and gun committed dacoity at the house of the deceased Deepak Singh, during the course of dacoity Deepak Singh has been murdered by the miscreants. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by Smt. Archana wife of the deceased and Km. Priyanka, the daughter of the deceased.
3. Heard Sri C.P.Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:
1. That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has been disclosed by the witnesses Smt. Archana Singh wife of the deceased and Km. Priyanka, daughter of the deceased, they have disclosed the name of the applicant and the co-accused Banti alias Vivek and Chhotey Lal. The naming of the applicant is after thought.
2. That no looted property has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out.
3. That the applicant has claimed identification but the same has been refused.
4. That the co-accused Teepu alias Arun Kumar has been released on bail. His name was also came into light during investigation.
5. That the applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi. He is not having any criminal antecedent.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting:
I. That the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sachin Singh, brother of the deceased.
II. That the first informant was not eye witness of the alleged incident even the was not residing in the house where the alleged occurrence has taken place. He was residing in another Mohalla. The F.I.R. was lodged by him with out the consultation of the eye witnesses.
III. That the statement of eye witnesses Archana and Km. Priyanka have been recorded on 26.6.2006, the day of the alleged occurrence. The statement of these witnesses were immediately recorded by the I.O. at the place of occurrence after lodging the F.I.R.
IV. That there is no delay in recording the statement of the witnesses Smt. Archana and Km. Priyanka. They have narrated whole story disclosing the name of the applicant and co-accused Banti alias Vivek and Chhotey Lal.
V. That there is no reason of the false implication of the applicant and other co-accused and the case of the applicant is not identical with the case of the co-accused Teepu alias Arun Kumar because the name of Teepu has not been disclosed by the eye witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
8. Accordingly this application is rejected.