RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This appli cation has been filed by the applicant Arv ind with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 159 of 2006 un der section 302 IPC, P. S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Sanjeev Gupta at P. S. Karhal on 9. 5. 2006 at 12. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9. 5. 2006 at about 7. 00 a. m. , the distance of the police station was about 10 km. from the alleged place of occur rence. It is alleged that deceased Om Prakash Gupta was Dakpal of Bhora Branch, he has left his house on 9. 5. 2006 at about 7. 00 a. m. to distribute the posts when he did not return to his house up to 9. 00 a. m. the applicant and Ram Shanker pro ceeded towards the village Aspura by a motorcycle when they reached near Asrauli and saw that the applicant and three other co-accused persons were assaulting the deceased by iron rods, the accused persons were having iron rods and country made pistols etc. The accused persons were shouting and uttering that the deceased be killed today when they were challenged by the first informant and others they escaped from the alleged place of occurrence by a vehicle. After sustaining the injuries the deceased was lying on the ground but he disclosed the name of the accused persons consequently he became unconscious and died. It is alleged that the accused persons had made a murderous assault on the de ceased prior five or six years back of the alleged incident and they had looted the DHL gun and the money, its case is pend ing before the Court concerned. In that in cident the deceased was the star witness. Prior the alleged incident the accused per sons were extending the threats to the de ceased, its complaint was made by the de ceased to S. P. Mainpuri and Superinten dent of Post Office/mainpuri. 3. According to the post-mortem ex amination report the deceased has sus tained 11 injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 were lacerated wounds, injury Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 were abraded contusion and injury No. 9 was abrasion. 3. According to the post-mortem ex amination report the deceased has sus tained 11 injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 were lacerated wounds, injury Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 were abraded contusion and injury No. 9 was abrasion. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and there was a fracture on frontal bone, right temporal, right perital. 4. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary and Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Sushil Dubey and Sri J. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the com plainant. 5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occur rence has taken place at a lonely place. The presence of the first informant and others witness Ram Shanker at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful even they did not disclose the specific time of the incident. Both the witnesses are chance witness. There is no other independent witness to support the prosecution story. Even according to the post-mortem exami nation report it appears that the deceased has sustained injuries in a road accident thereafter the information was given to the first informant and others then they came and saw the dead body. The prosecution story is highly unreliable. It is alleged that the prosecution story is highly unreliable. It is alleged that the accused persons were also having other weapons including the country made pistols but the same were not used. During investigation the manner of the incident as mentioned in the FIR has been changed. According to the changed version the first informant and witness Ram Shanker stated that their black col oured vehicle looking as Marchal dashed the deceased thereafter the deceased fell down on the road thereafter the accused persons come down from the vehicle and assaulted the deceased by iron rods and iron pipe, up to to the some extent the first informant and witness Ram Shanker are also accepting that the deceased has sus tained injuries in an accident. The witness Ram Shanker who is resident of District Auraiya whose present at the place of oc currence was highly doubtful. The appli cant is innocent he has been falsely impli cated on account of pendency of a civil suit No. 481 of 1995 pending in the Civil Court. The witness Ram Shanker who is resident of District Auraiya whose present at the place of oc currence was highly doubtful. The appli cant is innocent he has been falsely impli cated on account of pendency of a civil suit No. 481 of 1995 pending in the Civil Court. Prior the alleged incident the applicant was falsely implicated in some other cases also and he was falsely implicated in an earlier case of dacoity also. The applicant is inno cent, in case he is released on bail he shall not tamper with the evidence. 6. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in the deceased was a star witness in case No. 167 of 2000 under sections 395 and 397 IPC, P. S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. The specific role of causing the injury is assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. The prosecution story is corroborated by the post mortem examination report and the FIR cannot be said to be encyclopedia having a complete description of the prose cution. The applicant is having criminal antecedent. He is involve in some other criminal cases also and statements of the first informant and witness Ram Shanker. The deceased has sustained 11 injuries caused by hard and blunt object. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tam per with the evidence because it is a case in which the applicant has committed the murder of the deceased after releasing on bail because the deceased was a witness against the applicant and other co-accused persons in an earlier case of dacoity, there fore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. Considering the facts, circum stances of this case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. , learned Counsel for the complain ant and considering the allegations that the deceased was the star witness in an earlier case of dacoity in which the applicant was also one of the accused after releasing on bail the deceased has been murdered and the applicant is having criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not enti tled to be released on bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .