RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Santosh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 506 of 2007 under section 302 I. P. C. P. S. Dataganj district Budaun. 2. Heard Sri R. P. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Vibhendu Mishra learned Counsel for the complainant. 3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Hukum Singh on 16. 9. 2007 at 9. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16. 9. 2007 at 7. 00 p. m. distance of the police station was about 1 km from the alleged place of occurrence, it is alleged that the deceased Charan Singh was living in village Kalaura for the last 2 years, on 16. 9. 2007 the deceased had gone to Buduan to meet his brother in law Jaggnath when he was returning he met with the applicant, co-accused Surjeet Jagpal and Jasbir. The deceased had beaten these persons about 7 years prior the alleged occurrence, on account of this enmity they administered liquor to the deceased and they moved in the company of the deceased for the village Kalaura but he was shot dead near shamshan ghat, after hearing the sound the first informant and other witnesses reached towards the place of occurrence and saw that the co-accused Surendra was armed with rifle and also saw the accused persons in running condition, at that time the co-accused Surjeet was armed with rifle, applicant was armed with D. B. B. L gun and the co-accused Jagpal and Satbir were armed with unauthorized arm, they were saying that they have taken the revenge of old enmity, the dead body of the deceased was lying in a sugarcane field, the statement of the first informant was recorded, he followed the F. I. R. version and other witnesses also followed the F. I. R. version, they stated that they saw the accused person when they were running from the place of occurrence causing injury on the person of the deceased and they were saying that the revenge of old enmity has been taken. 4. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful because their house were far away from the alleged place of occurrence even it was not possible to hear the sound of firing as the house of the first informant was about a distance of two km. and the deceased was having criminal antecedent in six criminal cases including murder, he was having multi cornered enmity. The applicant has been falsely implicated only due to old enmity of the first informant. 5. It is further contented that the prosecution story is not supported by the post mortem examination report because the deceased has sustained five ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 was firearm wound of entry, having its exit wound, injury No. 3 was firearm wound of entry, injury No. 4 was having its exit wound, and injury No. 5 was abrasion. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the site plan also. 6. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. that in this case F. I. R. has been promptly lodged, applicant was having old enmity, due to old enmity the applicant has been murdered and the deceased has sustained firearm wound of entry and there is no reason of false implication of the applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and 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. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .