AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in case crime No. 20 of 2009, under sections 315, 506 IPC, police station Majhola, district Moradabad. 3. The allegations in the FIR were that there were illicit relations between the applicant Karun and the informant Shafi Ahmads daughter Momina. On 26. 12. 2008 the applicant deceptively called Momina to his house and gave her an injection because of which a child was immediately born and then Karun strangulated the baby and threw the dead body near a pond. On 27. 12. 2008 the dead body was recovered, which was identified to be Mominas child. 4. The post-mortem report showed that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ant-mortem throttling and there was a contusion 8 cm x 2 cm in front of both sides of neck. On dissection a blood clot was present under neck skin. 5. The sheet anchor of the applicants contention was that the information of the dead body was given on 26. 12. 2008 at 2. 20 PM on the basis of which the inquest was conducted at 5 PM in which the informant himself was present. Whereas according to the FIR and statement of the witnesses the incident took place at 7. 00 PM on 26. 12. 2008 and, therefore, the inquest which was conducted did not relate to the child at all, but to some other child, who was found strangulated under similar conditions. We are not at all impressed by this argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 6. The complainant and others are illiterate persons, who may be confused about the date and time when the incident took place. It is also apparent from the fact that the FIR mentioned that the child was recovered on 26. 12. 2008, whereas the in quest was also conducted on 26. 12. 2008 and the documents and the evidence show that the incident took place one day earlier. 7. I also find no ground whatsoever why this story has been concocted against the applicant if he had no concern with the matter. 8. There is also no merit in the sub mission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the informant has borrowed Rs. 7. I also find no ground whatsoever why this story has been concocted against the applicant if he had no concern with the matter. 8. There is also no merit in the sub mission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the informant has borrowed Rs. 10, 000/- from the applicant, which he was not returning and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. 9. I can also not give too much im portance to the facts that the applicant had a wife and four children and placenta was found on the dead body of the child. 10. An argument has also been raised that the FIR was lodged after 18 days. The FIR itself mentions that the informant was ashamed after the incident and after persuasion by the villagers, he gathered cour age and lodged the report. Because of the delayed lodging of the FIR, there may also have been some confusion about the date of incident. On these allegations, I think that the case would not only be one under section 315 IPC, but could also fall under section 302ipc. 11. In view of what has been indi cated herein above, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly rejected. 12. It is made clear that the detailed reasons mentioned herein above have only been given because of the lengthy stibmis-sions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the same should not preju dice the Investigating Officer and the trial Judge from exercising their own minds in dependently. Application Rajected. .