RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) THIS application is filed by Jagdish with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 380 of 2005 under Sections 364-A I. P. C. P. C. P. S. Mauranipur district Jhansi. ( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F. I. R. was lodged by mohammad Taj Uddin on 10. 4. 2005 on 6. 35 A. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10. 4. 2005 at 4. 40. A. M. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version the first informant, his wife, son and his daughter came to Jhansi from Delhi by train. From there they proceeded for Khajurahoo by boarding on a qualis car, which was driven by one Anandi, the car was chased by one Tata Sumo, which was driven by co-accused Ashok Yadav and by overtaking the vehicle of the first informant was stopped. Thereafter the co-accused Ashok Yadav alongwith his four unknown associates over armed with country made pistols came out from the Tata Sumo and damaged the vehicle of the first informant and at the gun point the son of the first informant was taken out from the Qualis and by keeping him in Tata Sumo vehicle, the miscreants proceeded towards Chhatarpur. The first informant made an effort to chase the vehicle of the miscreants but the miscreants have taken away their vehicles in a very high speed. Thereafter the first informant could not get any information about their movement. The kidnapping of the son of the first informant was made for the purpose of realising the ransom. After lodging the F. I. R. the police of Jhansi came in active action and the Additional S. P. (Rural) Jhansi, Circle Officer Mau and S. H. O. Mauranipur alognwith a force reached at Chattarpur and they get success in recovering the alleged kidnapped boy Asif Tamiz on 10. 4. 2005 from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ashok Yadav. The applicant was arrested and from his possession one country made pistol also recovered. At the time of recovery they fired at the police party also. In defence the firing was done by the police party. 4. 2005 from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Ashok Yadav. The applicant was arrested and from his possession one country made pistol also recovered. At the time of recovery they fired at the police party also. In defence the firing was done by the police party. A case under Section 307 I. P. C. and 25/27 Arms Act was also registered against the applicant and other co-accused. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the f. I. R. . He has not been put put for identification. The only allegation against the applicant is that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused the kidnapped boy was recovered. The recovery was planted. The applicant was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution and the recovery is not supported by any independent witnesses. ( 6 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the applicant and co-accused persons kidnapped the boy aged about 12 years at the gun point and taken in a Tata Sumo vehicle and on the same day the recovery was made by the Police from Madhya Pradesh in a police encounter from the possession of the applicant and the co-accused and at the time of recovery the applicant was identified by the first informant and others that he was the person who had kidnapped the boy. Therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY this bail application is rejected. . .