NEERAJ RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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 AGA.

(2.) THE applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 1282 of 2004 under Sections 364, 342, 328, 323 and 379 IPC P.S. Cantt. District Gorakhpur.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in the present case, the FIR is delayed by 6 days, so no reliance can be placed on such delayed FIR 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.