ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. on the second bail application made by accused Ashok Kumar and perused the record.

(2.) The first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Bench vide order dated 9.8.2012 wherein it was made clear that without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application was rejected in view of the fact that the abductee had not been recovered.

(3.) While pressing this second bail application learned counsel for the applicant has contended that true it is that abductee has yet not been recovered, but the implication of the applicant is false and he intends to substantiate his contention by the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation wherein charge sheet has now been submitted. He has argued that all the prosecution witnesses on the basis of whose belated statement initially recorded by the I.O. the name of the applicant came to light as one of the perpetrator into the crime have been belied by their subsequent interrogation by the I.O. All the prosecution witnesses including Kashmir Singh the real brother of the first informant, Dharamvir Singh, Satyavir Singh and Mohar Singh had earlier stated to I.O. that they had seen the abductee Viresh aged about 17-18 years son of first informant in the company of accused applicant and others but they took somersault during their subsequent interrogation by I.O. and all these prosecution witnesses including Kashmir Singh have stated that they had not last seen the abductee in the company of the applicant and others as a result of which vide CD Parcha no.23 /12 I.O. had apprised his superior officer that the implication of the applicant in the alleged crime is not substantiated by the evidence of prosecution witnesses and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses , but none of them have seen abductee Viresh in the company of applicant and others.