JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri P.N. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apul Misra and Sri Kamlesh Singh learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant has filed this application with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 48 of 2005, under Section 364A I.P.C, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the alleged occurrence has taken place on 7.3.2005 at about 11.30 p.m. in the vicinity of village Sinaura. Its F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Suresh Singh Yadav at P.S. Bewar on 8.3.2005at 9.05 a.m. against the applicant and two others co-accused persons.
4. According to the prosecution version the abducted persons namely Mahesh Singh, Ajai alias Guddu, applicant Shiv Singh and Virpal Singh alias Pappu were coming back from Mahabir Cold Storage Chhibramau after depositing the potatoes by their tractor At about 11.30 p.m. they reached near a bridge of canal on Naviganj Jasmai road where 6 or 7 unknown persons were already sitting, who were waiting the arrival of the alleged abducted person and they were armed with weapons. They stopped the tractor of the abducted person and the abducted person was taken away from the tractor towards the east side. The other persons namely Ajai alias Guddu, Mool Chandra and Veer Pal alias Pappu were also taken out from the tractors and by tying their hands they were kept in a field. All the miscreants were identified in the light of tractor. They were speaking in local language. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and two other co-accused namely Ajai alias Guddu and Sanjeev as suspect accused. The alleged abducted person namely Mahesh Singh was recovered by the police from the possession of the applicant and two other co-accused persons on 10.3.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. At the time of recovery of the alleged abducted person three miscreants successfully ran away from that place, who could not be arrested. The applicant and two other co-accused persons disclosed their names and address. From the possession of the applicant one country made pistol of 315 bore and 5 live cartridges were recovered. When the abducted person was recovered his hands and legs were tied by rope and his eyes were also covered by a patti. His hands, legs and eyes were opened by the police. The abducted person was medically examined on 11.3.2005 at 4.30 p.m. According to medical examination report he had received 6 injuries. All the injuries were abrasions. Thereafter, statement of the alleged abducted person Mahesh Singh was recorded. He disclosed that when he was coming back from Chhibaramau his tractor was followed by the tractor of the applicant and that tractor was followed by tractor of one Veer Pal, but one Ajai alias Guddu overtook all the tractors in a high speed, but at Nagiganj he met with the abducted person. When the tractor of the abducted person reached near the bridge of the canal, it was stopped by two miscreants, at that time other miscreants were standing under a tree. Guddu alias Ajai also played very important role by giving information to the miscreants and at his behest the abducted person was identified by the miscreants. Thereafter, the abducted person was taken out from the tractor his hands and eyes were tied he was beaten by the miscreants and taken from a canal road and and he was confined in a room. Thereafter, in the dark hours of night he was taken to a jungle where the miscreants stated that a sum of Rs. 5 lac shall be realized as a ransom and he was asked to write a letter to the head of the family. They were saying that after realizing the money the abducted person shall be murdered. His eyes were tied by a cloth therefore, he was not in a position to see the places where he was kept, but he stated that by a preplaned scheme the applicant and other co-accused person committed the alleged offence and he was not permitted to go ahead by the tractor. The statement of the witnesses namely Mool Chandra and Veer pal were recorded who supported the prosecution version.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant only in doubt and suspicion and there is no evidence to show that the abducted person was beaten by the applicant whereas the allegation of abduction is against the other co-accused person. Admittedly the applicant was in the company of the alleged abducted person. According to statement of the abducted person the allegation against the applicant is of hatching the conspiracy to commit the alleged offence.
6. It is further contended that the applicant was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution. He was arrested from his house and taken to the police station where the was falsely implicated. Even according to prosecution version the abducted person was recovered from another bushes at some distance from the place of his arrest and according to prosecution version also the abducted person has been recovered without payment of ransom and no direct role has been attributed to the applicant in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the witnesses.
7. It is further contended that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi and on account of suspicion. He is cultivator and he is in jail since 11.3.2005
8. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and two other co-accused persons on 8.3.2005 at 9.05 a.m. and the correct natural story was narrated in the F.I.R. the abduction was made for the purpose of realizing the ransom and thereafter the intention of the accused person was to commit the murder of the abducted person also. The abducted person was recovered from the company of the applicant and other co-accused person by the police because the police had got the information through a mukhbir khas that abducted person was seen in the company of the applicant and five other miscreants. On that information the police party chased the miscreants and got success in recovering the abducted person and arresting the applicant and two other co-accused person , but three miscreants successfully ran away from the place of the occurrence . The recovery was made from the bushes of the jungle. The abducted person was found when his eyes, hands and legs were tied. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical examination report because abducted person has received 6 injuries, which corroborates the story of Marpeet as well as of tying the hands and legs by rope. It is further submitted that no reason of false implication has been shown by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A G A 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.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.