JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri A. Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
2. This application Is filed by the applicants with a prayer that they may be released on bail In case crime no, 76 of 2004, under Section 364A I.P.C. , P.S. Kasganj, Etah.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case one boy namely Rinkoo alias Yash Gupta was kidnapped for the purpose of realizing ransom on 5.3.2005. Its information was given to the police station concerned on 14.3.2005. Man Singh, SHO, P.S. Kasganj along with some police personnel reached near Mohalla Durga Colony. When they were in search of alleged kidnapped boy, they got information through mukhbir khas that some of the miscreants will come in a mango's garden situated near the side in vicinity of village Wazirpur at about 11.00 a.m. on 14.3.2005 and he gave the information that if they are surrounded, the kidnapped boy may be recovered, relying upon that information the first informant and others came at that place and they surrounded the mango's garden and saw the person who were sitting inside the garden, thereafter, a challenge was given by the first informant and gave a warning that all the miscreants were surrounded by the police. Thereafter, at the exhortation' of the miscreants four shots were discharged at the police party, but the police personnel successfully saved by not receiving any injury, but the four miscreants were arrested by the police after using necessary force at about 12.10 p.m. on 14.3.2005, but two miscreants escaped from the place of occurrence. The applicants and two co-accused were arrested and they disclosed their names and Addresses. From the possession of the applicant Anand one country made pistol of 315 bore having empty cartridge in its barrel was recovered and from the possession of the co-accused Manoj also one country made pistol of 315 bore having empty cartridges in its barrel was recovered and at their pointing out recovery of alleged kidnapped boy Rinkoo was made from the hut which was on the bank of river Ganga. The first informant tried to collect the public witness, but due to fear of the accused no person was ready to become witness.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants were not arrested as alleged by the prosecution and the applicants were not named in information given in respect of the missing of the alleged kidnapped boy. It is further contended that the applicants were arrested by the police from their house on 8.3.2005. They were illegally detained at the police station and they were challaned in the present case on 13.3.2005. A telegrams were sent to the higher authority on 10.3.2005 and 13.3.2005 regarding arrest of the applicants, which belies the whole prosecution story.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicants have kidnapped the boy for the purpose of realizing ransom and from their pointing out the recovery of the kidnapped boy namely Rinkoo was made and the kidnapped boy has supported the prosecution story. The telegrams may be sent in peshwandi also.
6. I am of the view that the telegram sent on behalf of the accused prior to arrest shown by the police and the plea that the applicants were not arrested as alleged by the prosecution and have been implicated falsely may be properly .considered by the trial court when such evidence is adduced because telegrams are sent in peshwandi also.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the ball application is rejected at this stage.