SHIV SHANKER, J. This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Ashish Rawat alias Kakku in case crime No. 274 of 2008. under sections 302/201, I. P. C. , P. S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad. 2. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant assisted by Dr. G. S. D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri P. K. Singh learned Counsel for complain ant and learned A. G. A. as well as perused the record. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the F. I. R. was lodged on 20. 5. 2008 at about 8. 15 A. M. regarding oc currence dated 20. 5. 08 in the morning by Ranjeet Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh against unknown miscreants. On the same day, inquest report was prepared regard ing dead body of deceased as unknown. Later on, it was identified by his father as dead body of Sintu alias Shirish, son of Rajendra Bahadur Singh, resident of village Narain Das ka Purva, police station San-gipur, district Pratapgarh. Thereafter fa ther of deceased Rajendra Bahadur Singh and other signatories namely Suresh Singh (Tau), Brijendra Pratap Singh, brother, Sanjay Singh, brother, Jitendra Pratap Singh, brother (alleged eye-witness Amit Kumar Singh, brother) came to the police station Cantt. Allahabad and submitted written application by stating that there is no doubt of any kind upon any person. This shows that father of deceased and above five signatories had no knowledge as to who committed murder of deceased. 4. It is further contended that state ment of Jitendra Pratap Singh, brother of deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer who claimed to be eye-witnesses of this incident along with one Yogendra Vishwakarma. Amit Kumar Singh is also cousin of deceased. The statement of Amit Kumar Singh has been recorded by the In vestigating Officer in parcha No. 1 wherein it has been stated that Yogendra Vish wakarma who is alleged to be an eye witness has informed on mobile to him by stating that Sintu alias Shirish has been murdered by two unknown persons in his presence. Therefore, Amit Kumar Singh witness received the information from the alleged eye-witness Yogendra Vish-wakarma wherein the applicant has not been named. Therefore, Amit Kumar Singh witness received the information from the alleged eye-witness Yogendra Vish-wakarma wherein the applicant has not been named. Later on, the applicant has been named in the statement of this witness Yogendra Vishwakarma by stating that the deceased was murdered by causing fire arm injuries by the present applicant. It is further contended that Jitendra Pratap Singh who is real brother of deceased was also one of signatory in the application moved by father of deceased to the con cerned police station that there is no suspi cion upon any person. This shows that Jitendra Pratap Singh witness did not know till moving the application by father of de ceased as to who committed murder of de ceased. In such circumstances, -Investigat ing Officer has shown witnesses Jitendra Pratap Singh and Yogendra Vishwakarma to be eye-witnesses in this alleged incident by giving colour to the case. It is further contended that statement of Jitendra Pratap Singh witness reveals that he was present at the time of incident in the same room and he saw incident in his presence. Later on, he rushed away from there and stayed the whole night at Prayag Railway Station, from where he has informed to his father in district Pratapgarh but he has not disclosed the name of assailants in information given to his father. Out Post (Police) is also avail able at the Prayag Railway Station and he was staying at Prayag Railway Station, so he could give the information regarding such murder to the out post. The same in formation has not been given to the out post. It is further contended that the con cerned police station was at the distance of one and half kilometres and he could also give information regarding murder of de ceased in the concerned police station. It is very surprising that brother of alleged eye witness Jitendra Pratap Singh was mur dered in his presence and he was quite mum in the said railway station whole night and even he was quite mum up to moving application to the concerned police station on 21. 5. 2008. This shows that above two eye-witnesses have been made by the Investigating Officer for giving colour to the case which is afterthought. It is further contended that love letters were found of one Mona but name of her lover has not been mentioned in such love letters. 5. 2008. This shows that above two eye-witnesses have been made by the Investigating Officer for giving colour to the case which is afterthought. It is further contended that love letters were found of one Mona but name of her lover has not been mentioned in such love letters. There fore, it cannot be connected with the de ceased. Statement of Mona has been re corded by the Investigating Officer on his wishes. She has filed an affidavit in not supporting of her alleged statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. Therefore, murder has allegedly taken place in the room of de ceased but there is no reliable evidence on record as to in whose presence the appli cant has committed murder of deceased. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that the deceased was living in the said room on rent and doing work of Gaskil of witness Amit Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar Singh was having main office in Banaras. The presence of al leged eye-witnesses Jitendra Pratap Singh, Yogendra Vishwakarma and Mona were found suspicious at the time of alleged in cident. 6. On the other hand it is submitted that there is motive against the present applicant as there was love affairs in be tween Mona witness and deceased. Blood etc. were found in the said room. This shows that he was killed in the room of deceased. Mona witness also supported the prosecution version by disclosing her to be eye-witness of this incident. Later on, she has given an affidavit under the influence of her relatives. 7. The statement of Km. Mona re veals that she was living at the house of her maternal uncle. The deceased Sintu alias Shirish was also living in one room on rent in front of house of her maternal uncle. Therefore, love affairs were developed in between both of them and in this connec tion, she used to go into the room of de ceased in the night. Anyhow it came into the notice of the applicant who is son of her maternal uncle and he had scolded the de ceased for the same. On 19. 5. 2008 in the evening she was standing at the door of her room and deceased was also standing on his rooms door and both were making in dication of love. Anyhow it came into the notice of the applicant who is son of her maternal uncle and he had scolded the de ceased for the same. On 19. 5. 2008 in the evening she was standing at the door of her room and deceased was also standing on his rooms door and both were making in dication of love. At the same time, the ap plicant reached there and saw the same. Therefore, the deceased was again scolded by him. 8. It is further stated by her that she had gone in the room of deceased on 19. 1. 2008 at about 10/11 P. M. and one Yo-gendra Vishwakarma had come out from the room who lived with him used to watch them at the time of their meeting and deceased was closing the door of room and at the same time the applicant armed with a country made pistol reached in the room and committed murder of deceased by causing fire arm injury and he died on the spot. She has further stated that she did love too much with the deceased and she wanted to marry herself with him and her love has been murdered. Therefore, the statement of Km. Mona reveals that the applicant committed murder of deceased in her presence by causing fire-arm injury. She has also stated that she was threatened not to disclose this fact to any person by her relatives. The statement of this eye witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer after one day of recovery of dead body. The body of deceased as unknown was recovered on 20. 5. 08 at about 8. 15 A. M. at the foot path in front of Rishikul Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, P. S. Cantt, Allahabad wrapped with cover of car. Inquest report was prepared as un known. The post-mortem was also conducted. 9. On 21. 5. 08, the room of deceased was inspected by the police, from where love letters written by Km. Mona were found and on that basis Km. Mona was enquired on 21. 5. 2008, who had given her statement as eye-witness regarding alleged occurrence. There is no dispute on behalf of applicant also that occurrence took place in the said room of the deceased. Mona were found and on that basis Km. Mona was enquired on 21. 5. 2008, who had given her statement as eye-witness regarding alleged occurrence. There is no dispute on behalf of applicant also that occurrence took place in the said room of the deceased. The state ment of Jitendra Pratap Singh, brother of deceased and Yogendra Vishwakarma who are alleged to be eye-witnesses of the oc currence, are not considered for the sake of arguments. Even then, the statement of Km. Mona has great importance as eye witness. No sufficient explanation has been given from the side of applicant as to why Km. Mona has given statement against the applicant who is son of her maternal uncle. Therefore, this contention has no force that she has given such statement under the influence of police. She has given explana tion in her statement that she was terrorized by family members of her maternal uncle not to disclose this fact to any person. 10. So far as filing of affidavit of Km. Mona is concerned regarding occurrence where in prosecution story is not sup ported. This also shows that this witness is being tampered with from very beginning stage. In the decision of Jaswant Singh case, the affidavit of witness regarding not sup porting prosecution case, cannot be consid ered at the stage of bail. Therefore, no benefit can be given to the applicant on the basis of affidavit of Km. Mona which was got prepared after recording her statement by the Investigating Officer. 11. It is worthwhile to mention here that after committing murder of deceased in the room of him, his dead body was wrapped with the cover of car and the same was taken and thrown at the place where dead body was found to conceal and destroy the evidence. 12. This case also rests upon direct evidence according to the statement of Km. Mona, although motive has no significance in case of direct evidence. However, motive is also established against the present ap plicant as Km. Mona is maternal sister (Mameri Bahan) of the present applicant and he had seen the deceased with Km. Mona in love-position sometimes and the deceased was scolded. On the same night, Km. Mona, although motive has no significance in case of direct evidence. However, motive is also established against the present ap plicant as Km. Mona is maternal sister (Mameri Bahan) of the present applicant and he had seen the deceased with Km. Mona in love-position sometimes and the deceased was scolded. On the same night, Km. Mona had gone into the room of de ceased and as deceased wanted to close the door of his room, the applicant reached there with a country made pistol and committed murder of deceased. 13. At this stage, no benefit can be given to the applicant by making out case under section 304 I. P. C. in place of case under section 302 I. P. C. This incident had taken place in the heart of city of Allahabad. Prosecution version is supported with the post-mortem report of the deceased. No sufficient explanation has been given on behalf of the ap plicant as to why he has been implicated falsely in this case while he is the relative of Km. Mona. 14. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appli cant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected. Application Rejected. .