present case merely on the basis of suspicion as also due to previous enmity with the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fardbeyan was recorded near the door of Prahlad Kushwaha but, it is not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or during investigation as to how and on whose information, the S.H.O. of Dhanaha police station, who recorded the Informant’s fardbeyan, reached at the place of occurrence and, thus, it appears that the actual F.I.R. has been suppressed in this case and, thus, the fardbeyan of the Informant is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the Informant is not the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence nor anybody has claimed to have seen the occurrence and, thus, there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police to give different colour to the occurrence apprehended the petitioner and got his confessional statement recorded showing involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. There is no direct or specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no concern with the