Ravindra Singh, J.- Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Sri Kirshan Ji Khare, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri A.K. Chaurasia, learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. This bail application has been filed by applicant, Gulab Yadav with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 75 of 2011, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Mohammadabad, district-Ghazipur. 3. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Smt. Shila Devi at P.S. Mohammadabad on 8.4.2011 at about 8.15 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 8.4.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. The applicant, co-accused Munna Yadav and co-accused Rakesh Yadav are named in the F.I.R. as accused. It is alleged that on 8.4.2011 at about 4.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to attend call of nature, due to land dispute the applicant and other co-accused persons caught the deceased and he was abused, thereafter they brought the deceased to their house, where he was beaten and thrown to back of the house where the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The alleged incident was witnessed by first informant Radheyshyam Chaurasia, Guddu Chaurasia and Santosh Chaurasia. According to post mortem re­port, the deceased has sustained seventeen ante mortem injuries. All injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The appli­cant applied for bail before learned Ses­sions judge Ghazipur, who rejected the same on 19.5.2011. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the time of incident of the present case is highly doubtful. Accord­ing to prosecution version, the alleged oc­currence has taken place at about 4.00 a.m., it has not been taken place at the house of the deceased. According to prosecution version, the deceased was caught by the applicant and other co-accused persons when he had gone to attend call of nature, thereafter he was taken to the house of the applicant, where he was again beaten and he was thrown to back of his house where he succumbed to his injuries, it shows that presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. There are material con­tradictions and the statement of the wit­nesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it shows that they had not seen the alleged incident. The deceased has been killed by some unknown miscreants in the night. There are material con­tradictions and the statement of the wit­nesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it shows that they had not seen the alleged incident. The deceased has been killed by some unknown miscreants in the night. Even according to prosecution version, there was no source of light. The distance of police station was about 1 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. No F.I.R. has been lodged immediately thereafter. The F.I.R. has been lodged at about 8.14 a.m. when the dead body was recovered in the morning. The applicant was having no mo­tive or intention to commit the alleged of­fence and there was no dispute with regard to the land between the applicant and the deceased. The deceased was having bad habits, he was having multiple criminal enmity. In the night, he was murdered by some unknown persons. In the morning, the dead body was found then the F.I.R. has been lodged, in which the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated. The witnesses men­tioned in the F.I.R. are belonging to the family of the deceased. There is no inde­pendent witnesses of the locality to support the prosecution story. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 9.4.2011, therefore, he may be re­leased on bail. 5. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the mo­tive has been shown in the F.I.R. itself. On account of dispute over the land, the de­ceased was badly beaten by the applicant and other co-accused persons. He had sus­tained seventeen ante mortem injuries. The alleged incident was witnessed by the first informant and other co-accused persons. During investigation, the statement of the first informant has been recorded in which she stated that the deceased was beaten by the applicant and other co-accused persons, the witness Radheyshyam Chaurasia has stated that the deceased was beaten by us­ing kicks and fists blow. The witness San-tosh Chaurasia has stated that he was beaten by kicks, fists and dandas blow. The same statement was given by Ramakant Chaurasia @ Guddu. On the basis of minor discrepancies, it may not be said that pres­ence of the witnesses was doubtful. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 6. The same statement was given by Ramakant Chaurasia @ Guddu. On the basis of minor discrepancies, it may not be said that pres­ence of the witnesses was doubtful. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., Counsel for the complain­ant and from perusal of the record it ap­pears that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 8.4.2011 at about 8.15 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 8.4.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. It is alleged that the deceased was carried by the appli­cant and two other co-accused persons, thereafter he was taken to the house of the accused persons, where he was beaten and thrown to back of the house. The witnesses interrogated by the I.O. claimed themselves to be eye-witness. According to post mor­tem examination report, the deceased has sustained seventeen ante mortem injuries and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not enti­tled for bail. Such prayer is refused. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. Bail Application Rejected.