JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh and Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No, 1282 of 2004 under Sections 364, 342, 328, 323 and 373 I.P.C.P.S, Cantt District Gorakhpur.
3. From the perusal of the record as well as case diary, it appears that in the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged by Abhinandan Chaudhary alias Chhotu who was abducted by the applicant and other co-accused. The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 364, 342, 328, 323 and 379 I.P.C. on 28.10.2004 at 0.30 A.M. in respect of the incident which occurred on 22.10.2004 at about 6.00 P.M. The allegation against the applicant is that the first informant was abducted by the applicant and other co-accused on 22.10.2004 at about 6.00 P.M. The first informant was taken in Indigo Car by using force where he was injected, consequently, the first informant became unconscious. His golden chain and golden bracelet was snatched by the accused persons. The applicant was having some inimical relations with the first informant The abducted person was badly beaten and he was taken in jungle where he was handed over to some other miscreants by the applicant The other miscreants who were keeping the watch on the first informant but after talking liquor they had gone to a deed sleep, then the applicant run away from that place and he gave information to his father on telephone and with the help of others. 23.10.2005. He was medically examined on 24.10.2004. the medical examination report shows that he has sustained 13 injuries. The most of the injuries were on (lie vital part of the body. The applicant is a police constable. On the day of the alleged occurrence, he was posted at police line Siddharth Nagar. He was absconding from his duty since 22.10.2004. On 23.10.2004, his duty was to provide the Salami and security to Sri Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S. the Chairman of Board of Revenue UP. An announcement was made from the police line and his search was made by some other police personnels but nowhere he could be traced out and he did not attend theduty.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present case, the F.I.R. is delayed by 6 days, so no reliance can be placed on such delayed F.I.R. and the applicant has been falsely implicated because he was not having some good relations with the first informant because he remained in the security of the relative of the first informant, has no substance because in cases of abduction or kidnapping such delay is natural.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Accordingly this bail application is rejected at this stage.