JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Nripendra Chaturvedi learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Raja Singh learned counsel for the complainant.
2. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Zabbar Hussaain in case crime No. 87 of 2005 under Section 406 I.P.C. at police station Shikohabad, district Firozabad on 7.3.2005 at 11.00 p.m. with the allegation that the amount of 25 lac was entrusted to the applicant by first informant in the presence of Sri Saurabh Verma, and Shree Ram Gupta. The above mentioned amount was entrusted because that amount was collected for the purchase of land. The aforesaid amount was given in the presence of co-accused Raja Hussain and Smt Sajjadi Begum, but that amount was not refunded by the applicant. The demand of return of above money was ultimately refused by the applicant and other co-accused persons on 24.2.2005 at 9.00 a.m. It is contended that the applicant and other co-accused persons dishonestly usurped the money of the first informant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. no time of entrusting the aforesaid money to the applicant has been mentioned. It is further contended that the allegation of entrusting that money is absolutely false and baseless. The present F.I.R. has been lodged due to ill will of the first informant, because the relations between the applicant and the first informant were restrained on the issue of making construction over the land of graveyard.
3. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that during investigation it has come in the investigation that the aforesaid amount was entrusted to the applicant by the first informant in the month of June 2004 and the applicant has opened the account in the bank in which the same money has been deposited and the applicant was failed to disclose the other source of income to earn that money. It is further contended that the applicant has filed a compromise deed dated 8.3.2005, which has been annexed as C.A.-1 with the counter affidavit in which the applicant admitted that he has accepted the receiving of Rs. 25 lac from the first informant. It is further contended that there are independent witnesses to support the prosecution story and there is a stake of the applicant in which a sum of Rs. 25 lac is involved. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not refund the same amount..
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
5. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.