RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Abhiniwesh Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2007 under sections 302, 201 I. P. C. P. S. Farah district Mathura. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Awadesh Kumar Singh on 5. 11. 2007 at 1. 00 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 4. 11. 2007 in the hostel of Hindustan Engineering College, Farah district Mathura. The applicant and the co-accused Shubham Pandey are named in the F. I. R. , it is alleged that the deceased Shivam Dwivedi was a student of B. Tec. I year of Hindustan Engineering College, Farah district Mathura, he was hostel inmate. On 4. 11. 2007 at about 10 Oclock the first informant got information that his son deceased Shivam Dwivedi was not feeling well, on that information he along with some other persons came to Hindustan Engineering College, Farah but he did not find his son in his room of postal, he came to know from other inmates of the hostel that on account of the dispute of some money, the deceased was beaten in the night of his room upartners, namely Abhiniwesh Singh, Shubham Pandey consequently, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was hanged by them to give colour of this incident as of hanging, thereafter the first informant went to the police station, Farah where he came to know that the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned had already gone to the Apollo Hospital, thereafter, the applicant and his companion went to the Apollo Hospital where they came to know that the dead body of the deceased was sent to mortuary, after conducting the post mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the first informant. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained two ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1, was contusion on the left face and injury No. 2 was contusion over occipital region of head. Injury No. 3 was a ligature mark over the neck, which was post mortem injury. The cause of death was due to comma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 3. Injury No. 3 was a ligature mark over the neck, which was post mortem injury. The cause of death was due to comma as a result of ante mortem head injury. 3. Heard Sri J. S. Senger and Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case no F. I. R. has been lodged on the basis of hearsay evidence. There is no eye-version account. According to the inquest report, which was prepared on 4. 11. 2007 the deceased had committed suicide. The I. O. has recorded the statement of Manish Singh, warden of Vivekanand Hostel of Hindustan Engineering College who stated that in the room No. 302, three students i. e. the deceased, applicant and the co-accused Shubham Pandey were residing. The deceased had misused the A. T. M. card of the applicant and withdrawn Rs. 5500/- and two days prior of the alleged incident Rs. 6,000/- were withdrawn, when the applicant came to know, he made a quarry from the deceased but he denied the allegation, its information was given by the applicant to his friend Shubham Pandey, Jubin Sharma, Umesh Pratap, Dheeraj Dhigani, Vikram Sinha and Piyush Misra, Raman Katiyar, Sushant Singh, and Amardeep Singh, they sat in the room No. 302 in the night of 3/4 11. 2007 and enquired from the deceased who denied the allegation then the applicant and three other had beaten the deceased, thereafter, he admitted that he had used A. T. M. card and thrown the same after tearing it, he promised that he would return the money but the applicant was not satisfied again he and three other co-accused persons beaten the deceased but the other students prevented and went away from the room. Thereafter, the applicant came to know at 8. 30 a. m. that the deceased had committed suicide. He was taken to the Apollo Hospital where he was declared dead. The statement of Manish Singh was also based on hearsay. The spot inspection prepared by the I. O. and site plan indicate that the door of the room was broken. Thereafter, the applicant came to know at 8. 30 a. m. that the deceased had committed suicide. He was taken to the Apollo Hospital where he was declared dead. The statement of Manish Singh was also based on hearsay. The spot inspection prepared by the I. O. and site plan indicate that the door of the room was broken. Thereafter, the statement of Vikram Singh, Piyush Mishra, Raman Katiyar, Amar Deep, Susant Singh and Dheeraj Dhigani, were recorded by the I. O. , they also stated that the deceased had miscued the A. T. M. of the applicant and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 11,500/- regarding which a mar-peet took place. Thereafter, on 7. 11. 2007 the chadar by which the deceased was hanging, and iron chikni were taken into possession by the I. O. , its recovery memo was prepared. Thereafter, on 8. 11. 2007 the I. O. received the finger print of the all accused persons including the applicant and sent it for expert opinion. 5. It is further contended that no case under section 302 I. P. C. is made out. There is no intention to kill the deceased. The co-accused Jubin Sharma has been released on bail by another bench of this Court on 19. 12. 2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28508 of 2007. There is credible evidence to show that the applicant has committed the alleged offence. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he may be released on bail. 6. In reply to the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. that the applicant and the co-accused Shubham Pandey are the main accused, they were inmates of room No. 302 of the hostel in which the deceased was also residing. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. There is evidence that the deceased was beaten by the applicant and other co-accused persons, consequently, he died. Thereafter, the applicant was hanged to give colour of suicide. The story of suicide is not substantiated by any of the evidence or circumstances because according to the postmortem examination report also injury No. 3 was ligature mark over the neck, it was a post-mortem injury. The prosecution story is not fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Thereafter, the applicant was hanged to give colour of suicide. The story of suicide is not substantiated by any of the evidence or circumstances because according to the postmortem examination report also injury No. 3 was ligature mark over the neck, it was a post-mortem injury. The prosecution story is not fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The case the co-accused Jubin Sharma, who has been released on bail by another bench of this Court, is distinguishable with the case of the applicant because he was not named in the F. I. R. He was not the inmate of the room in which the dead body of the deceased was hanging and there was no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is a very grave offence in which a student of B. Tec. has been killed by the applicant and other coaccused persons. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and considering the fact that the applicant is the main accused, prosecution story has been fully corroborated with the medical evidence. The deceased was killed. Thereafter, he was hanged, the cause of death was the head injury and injury No. 3 was ligature mark over the neck, which was a post-mortem injury the case of the applicant is distinguishable with the case of the co-accused Jubin Sharma, who has been released on bail. The plea taken by the applicant that the deceased has committed suicide has not tenable because the ligature mark over the neck was a post-mortem injury, the gravity of the offence is too much because in this case a student of B. Tec. has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. 8. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application Rejected. .