"Shri J.P. Singh, Advocate filed power on behalf of the complainant today, is taken on record. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2016, u/ss. 302/201 I.P.C., Police Station- Sahjanvan, District- Gorakhpur. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that there is only a single testimony regarding the version of abduction and there is no adequate explanation for the delayed disclosure of the complicity of the applicant in the crime. Therefore, the applicant should be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. and Sri J.P. Singh have opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the occurrence of abduction of the deceased was witnessed by one Savitri Devi, who happens to be the co-tenant in the same house and who had full opportunity to witness the happening that took place nearby in the neighbourhood and according to her, the applicant was one of the accused persons, who had come to the place of residence of the deceased in the night and then the deceased was badly beaten up and he was dragged away and then the deceased was dumped in a Wagon-R car which was parked nearby. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Submission is that the circumstances are clinching and the only reasonable inference that can be drawn in such circumstances, would be that, in all probability, the accused who were responsible for the abduction of the deceased, are the killers of the deceased. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the accused as to what happened to the deceased after they abducted him. The circumstances and the events which took place subsequent to the abduction, are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused persons responsible for coercive violent abduction and therefore, both Sections 106 and 114 of Indian Evidence Act shall come into play and the presumption of guilt will be the natural inference. It was also pointed out that the coaccused Shanu @ Sanjiv Dwivedi, whose case is also on the same footing, has already been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9.12.2016. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. "
