JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashnt Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Mahesh Shah with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 23 of 2004, under Sections 364A, 368, 114, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 10/12 DAA Act, P.S. Civil Lines, district Etawah.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Pradeep Yadav, on 31.1.2004 at 8.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31.11.2004 at 5.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 1½ km from the alleged place of the occurrence. The F.I.R, was lodged against the co-accused Rrashant who was servant of the first informant. The kidnapped boy namely Subh Yadav aged about 1½ years was recovered from the house of the applicant on 6.2.2004. The applicant and one other co-accused person were arrested from the place of the recovery. During investigation it has come in the evidence that the kidnapping was made from the purpose of.realizing of ransom and the recovery was made from Pakari Tiwari Tola, P.S. Basantpur, Disstict Shivan (Bihar). In respect of demand of ransom witnesses Arvind and Baijnath were interrogated who were resident of the same village of the recovery of the kidnapped boy was,who stated that; there was demand of a sum of Rs. 20 lac as ransom.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has not been put up for identification. He has not made any demand in respect of ransom and there is no allegation in respect of kidnapping. The only allegation against him is that the kidnapped boy was brought at his house where he was kept by other co-accused. The applicant was not having any knowledge that the boy was kidnapped.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the kidnapped boy was aged about 1½ years, i He was recovered from the house of the applicant i.e. from Bihar whereas the kidnapping was done from Etawah (U.P.) and there is evidence that kidnapping was done for purpose of realizing the ransom. The applicant was having proper knowledge that the boy who was kept at his house was kidnapped for the purpose of realizing ransom. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.