Santosh Kumar alias Chandu Lal vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri V. K. Malaviya and Sri Naveen Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged on 28.6.2007 at 4.40 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28.6.2007 at about 2 p.m. It is said that one unknown person had come at the door of the first informant on 28.6.2007 at about 9 p.m. the, grandson of the first informant namely Pravesh aged about one year was lying on a cot outside the house. The first informant and others family members were busy in their house work. The unknown miscreant has taken away the grandson of the first informant. The prosecution story is highly doubtful and unreliable because nobody will permit the unknown person to play with a child aged about one year. It is said that the applicant was apprehended by the police at about 11 a.m. on 29.6.2007 near the place of Brahma Baba under a peeple tree. The applicant confessed before the police that the boy was kidnapped for human sacrifice and he was bringing the kidnapped boy for the sacrifice purpose at Chaube Ghat, Mirzapur. This story is highly concocted. The applicant was apprehended only on the basis of doubt and suspicion and there is no evidence to show that the child was kidnapped by the applicant for the purpose of sacrifice. The applicant is in jail since 29.6.2007. The applicant is innocent and is not involved in any other case, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in the present case the child aged about one year was kidnapped by the applicant on 28.6.2007 who has been recovered from the possession of the applicant on 29.6.2007. The applicant was having no relationship with the child and there was no reason of his false implication. In case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and considering the gravity of the offence which is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.