Shiv Shanker - (1.)-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. K. Maurya learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the missing report. After four days of missing of deceased, the F.I.R. under Section 364, I.P.C. was lodged by wife of deceased m on the basis of suspicion as per information given by other persons. It is further contended that confessional statement of co-accused Ravi Kaushik is not admissible in evidence against the present applicant. It is further contended that dead body of deceased was not recovered at his pointing out, but it was recovered on 5.11.07 at the parking of railway station Meerut Cantt. Thereafter, inquest report was prepared and post-mortem was conducted. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested by the police on 13.10.07. His confessional statement was recorded which is not admissible in evidence. False recovery of one country-made pistol of 315 bore, one purse and one A.T.M. Card of deceased were shown to be recovered at his pointing out, but the applicant was not taken to any place from the concerned police station for recovery. In this regard, learned counsel for applicant filed an affidavit before the concerned C.J.M. Therefore, false recovery has been made at the pointing out of present applicant. It is further contended that the deceased was a criminal person and having a long criminal history. He was also accused under Section 302, I.P.C., i.e., Case Crime No. 574 of 2003, under Section 302/120B, I.P.C. P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut in a case of murder of famous doctor. It is further contended that motive has been shown against the present applicant that he took loan from the deceased which is totally concocted. In fact he had never taken any loan amount from the deceased and as such there is no strong motive in this regard. After missing of deceased, the case was highlighted in Media and Newspapers but witnesses who were servant and employee of doctor Rohtash disclosed the name of the applicant in their statements which are showing the prosecution story doubtful.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.

This is the case of circumstantial evidence, of which following circumstances have been collected by the Investigating Officer :

1. That doctor Rohtas Gupta had gone from his house to his office situated at Evij Petrol Pump, Meerut on 31.10.07 at 12 noon. Later on, he did not return to his house in the evening. Therefore, his wife Sunita Gupta submitted a written report regarding his missing in the concerned police station which was entered in G.D. No. 52 at 1945 G.D. on 31.10.07 ; 2. That Sunita Gupta lodged the F.I.R. under Section 364, I.P.C. against the present applicant Vikram and his other companions by stating that she got information that Vikram took loan from her husband and the same was not returned at the demand and he extended threatening to him. Therefore, he felt grudge against the deceased ; 3.That 10-12 days ago of the alleged incident, the applicant had come at her house and her husband was abused and threatened by him ; 4.That on 5.11.07 at about 10.05 a.m., the said control room received information through telephone that dead body of deceased and his car was standing at the parking of Railway Station Cantt., Meerut, upon which the concerned police officer reached there and found the same. Thereafter inquest report was prepared and dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination ; 5.That the deceased had made film relating to wife of present applicant and one Sumit who was the friend of applicant. Therefore, the deceased was called by wife of applicant on mobile phone on 31.10.07 and reached at about 6 p.m. where applicant, his wife, Ravi Kaushik and two others were there. Thereafter, liquor was provided and he was pressed by them at the same time. The applicant shot fire upon him and another shot was also fired upon him by wife of the applicant. Consequently he died. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was taken by keeping in diggi of car of deceased and the same was seen by the witness Atul Kumar ; 6.That on 31.10.07, Aditya Prakash witness returned from Muzaffarnagar by train in the evening. He came out after getting down at the station and saw that car of Dr. Rohtas deceased was standing and applicant, co-accused Ravi Kaushik and two unknown persons had got down from the said car. Thereafter, dead body of deceased in the said diggi of car of deceased was recovered on 5.11.07. The post-mortem report of deceased reveals that cause of death of deceased has been shown 3 to 5 days old. Therefore, it supports the circumstances of killing of deceased on 31.10.07 in the evening. 7.That the applicant was arrested by the police on 11.11.07. Thereafter, the police remand was taken from the concerned Court. Later on, he was taken for recovery on 17.11.07 at about 9.30 a.m. Thereafter, one country made pistol of 315 bore alongwith empty cartridges, one purse and A.T.M. Card etc. of deceased were recovered. The same was recovered at his pointing out on the same day at 10.30 a.m.

(3.)THEREFORE, there are clinching circumstances against the present applicant as mentioned above and only inferences can be drawn on the basis of other circumstances that the applicant is also responsible for committing murder of deceased.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is not liable to be allowed.