It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 18th February, 2019, the first information report has been lodged on 21st February, 2019 by Mritunjay Singh, i..e master of victim, namely, Baijnath i.e. after three days from the date of incident, for which no plausible explanation has been given. In the first information report it has been alleged that on 18th February, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. (evening), when the victim was going to farm to take sugarcane, one unknown person abducted the victim. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that neither the applicant has been named in the first information report nor his name has surfaced in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been argued that the first informant, who runs a cattle housing (Gaushala), forcibly employed the victim as labour, who is of unsound mind and when the Baijnath @ Shanker got a chance, he escaped from the Gaushala of the informant. It has further been argued that the real fact is that the applicant's wife is a teacher in the village of the informant and informant is real pattidar of the wife of the applicant and only to malign the reputation of the applicant, the informant has falsely implicated the applicant. It has further been argued that neither the victim made any allegation against the applicant in the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. nor there is any other evidence against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C.. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 17th March, 2019.
