Hon'ble B.N. Shukla,J.- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused S.I. Yadunath Singh has been allowed bail by this Court and case of the applicant stands on same footings. It is further contended that except section 304 IPC rest sections are bailable and for the sake of argument if allegation against the applicant no. 1 is taken to be true even then case would come under section 204 IPC which is bailable. 3. Learned A.G.A. contended that the applicant no. 1 Harendra Nath was Station-in-Charge of the Police Station concerned and entire responsibility lies upon him and applicant nos. 2 to 4 were in his subordination and these are specific allegations against them. It is further contended that parity could not be claimed with S.I. Yadunath Singh who has been allowed bail by this Court. 4. Co-accused S.I. Yadunath Singh has been allowed bail by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh J. (vide Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 28245 of 2009) while allowing bail and discussing facts it was observed by the Lordship that allegation of removing the post mortem report etc. is against H.C. Jagpal Singh (the applicant no. 3). It was further observed that Harendra Singh Yadav (the applicant no. 1) was Incharge of the Police Station and four constables took away the deceased on tonga and they dragged him to the Police Station by doing marpit and he became unconscious and thereafter the dead body was taken by them in a Jeep at some unknow place. His Lordship allowed bail to S.I. Yadunath Singh by observing that there was no allegation of tempering of the record against him and he was not Incharge of maintaining the G.D. 5. Let us take case against the applicants. There is no dispute that S.I. Harendra Singh was not Incharge of the Police Station concerned when incident occurred. The FIR was lodged by the complainant Sri Rishi Pal Singh, Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Crime Branch, Bareilly. Applicant no. 4 Prem Prakash is retired Sub-Inspector of Police. 6. On 26.5.2004 Ex-Village Pradhan Chandra Shekhar gave information that a person was found in semi-unconscious intoxicant condition near the shop of Chacha Medical Store. Unknown person had brought him to Primary Health Centre, Bilsi and therefrom to District Hospital, Budaun where he was declared brought dead. Applicant no. 4 Prem Prakash is retired Sub-Inspector of Police. 6. On 26.5.2004 Ex-Village Pradhan Chandra Shekhar gave information that a person was found in semi-unconscious intoxicant condition near the shop of Chacha Medical Store. Unknown person had brought him to Primary Health Centre, Bilsi and therefrom to District Hospital, Budaun where he was declared brought dead. Inquest on dead body was conducted and in post mortem report cause of death could not be ascertained and no ante-mortem injury was found on the body. Smt. Jai Devi made complaint that her husband Ram Kishan was taken away by Police of Police Station Ughaiti and his son Chhotey Lal was caught by the Police when he was en route to Kutchery and Police beaten him and in unconscious state he had been taken away in a Jeep. On complaint to various authorities, the D.I.G. Bareily Range, Bareilly deputed S.P. (City) Budaun for enquiry. 7. This is case of custodian death. Allegation has been made against the applicants showing their involvement in torturing of Chhotey Lal (the deceased) and concealing/tempering the relevant documents. Entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Applicant no. 1 was Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station when the incident took place. Rest applicants were working under him. Although the FIR has been lodged after much delay yet it was due to enquiry and other formalities. Allegation is that the applicant no. 4 Prem Shanker had submitted the charge sheet in Crime No. 160/2004 simply to avoid any action in murder of Chhotey Lal (the deceased). Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicants. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 9. The bail application is rejected at this stage.