Ravindra Singh and M.C. Tripathi, JJ. - Heard Sri D.R. Chaud­hary, Sri M.K. Niranjan, and Smt. Gyatri Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the appel­lants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the complainant and pe­rused the Lower Court record. 2. The appellant Mohit Agarwal has preferred criminal appeal No. 2607 of 2012 and the appellant Raju @ Anuj Pafel has preferred criminal appeal No. 2679 of 2012 against the judgment and order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge D.A.A. Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 178 of 2007 connected with S.T. No. 16 of 2008 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364,302 and 201 I.P.C. Both the appel­lants have moved their bail applications in their respective appeals, therefore, both bail application are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned Counsel for the complainant and perus­ing the Lower Court record, it reveals that the FIR of this case has been lodged by P.W. 1 Kamlesh Kumar on 12.10.2007 at 12.10 p.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 11.10.2007 at about 11.15 p.m. alleging therein that Amit Kumar, the younger brother of the first informant, came to his house on a motor cycle on 11.10.2007 at 11.15 p.m. immediately thereafter, he went away from his house by saying to his mother that he shall return within 15 minutes. Thereafter, he did not return to his house, in the morning at 5.26 a.m. by using the mobile phone of the victim Amit Kumar, somebody posing himself to be Anoop Gujar said that the brother of the first informant was with him and thereafter the phone was disconnected. The appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel was apprehended by the police on 14.10.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., he made a confes­sional statement before the police by confessing that he and four other associ­ates, for realising the ransom kidnapped the deceased Amit Kumar in the night of 11.10.2007, thereafter, he was mur­dered. On that confessional statement, the first informant he was also called and a search of the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel was made, in the search, from the pocket of his pant, one Nokia mobile phone having I.M.E.I. No. 35457401993820 and sim number 9935706580 was recovered. On that confessional statement, the first informant he was also called and a search of the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel was made, in the search, from the pocket of his pant, one Nokia mobile phone having I.M.E.I. No. 35457401993820 and sim number 9935706580 was recovered. He disclosed the name of other co-accused persons including the name of the appellants Mohit Agarwal, the co-accused Praveen Soni and the co-accused Pankaj Upadhyay. He, in the company of the above mentioned accused persons who were residing in his neighbouring house and were his friends, and were fond of the girl also, hatched a conspiracy of his kidnapping and after realising the amount of ? 10 lakhs, to commit his murder. In furtherance of that conspiracy on 11.10.2007 when Ram Lila programme was going on in Konch Town, dug a pit in a building surrounded by the walls, which was at a distance of 2 furlongs from Konch Tiraha, for com­mitting his murder 14 kg salt and a rope was also purchased. He was having an­other Nokia phone number 9919987161, he used his both phones in hatching the conspiracy. In furtherance of the con­spiracy hatched by them at about 11 p.m. the deceased was taken to the house of Ram Ji Sharan Niranjan on a motorcycle where he was caught hold by the accused persons, his limbs were tied, the cloths were inserted in his mouth and from his mobile phone a message was given to the first informant with regard of his kidnapping and thereafter the accused persons commit­ted his murder by gandasa blow, his dead body was kept in that pit, which was covered by mud, before covering the dead body by mud, a golden colour writ watch and Rs. 400/- were also taken by the appellants from the possession of the deceased, his mobile phone was taken by the accused Ram Ji Sharan Niranjan, his ring was given to the ac­cused Praveen Soni, the money recov­ered from his pocket was equally distributed amongst the appellants Raju @ Anuj Patel and Mohit Agarwal. The ap­pellant Raju @ Anuj Patel, made the recovery of the dead body which was bur­ied by him on which the salt was thrown. Thereafter the inquest report was prepared and the post-mortem ex­amination was done. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had sustained four injuries in which injury Nos. The ap­pellant Raju @ Anuj Patel, made the recovery of the dead body which was bur­ied by him on which the salt was thrown. Thereafter the inquest report was prepared and the post-mortem ex­amination was done. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had sustained four injuries in which injury Nos. 1,3 and 4 were incised wounds and injury No. 2 was contusion. The cause of death was ante-mortem injuries. On 30.10.2007 the accused Pankaj Upadhyaya and Praveen Soni were arrested by the police and from their possession a Sonata wrist watch, a gold ring of the deceased were recov­ered. The details of calls were also col­lected by the I.O. and after completing the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. 4. At the stage of the trial 12 wit­nesses have been examined in which P.W. 1 Kamlesh Kumar, P.W. 2 Om Prakash Agarwal, P.W.3 Sanjay Kumar have been examined as witnesses of fact. P.W. 2 Om Prakash Agarwal is the ma­ternal uncle of the deceased and P.W. 3 Sanjay Kumar is the real brother of the deceased. The recovery has been proved by the I.O. The evidence of last seen has been given by P.W. 2 Om Prakash Agarwal. According to his deposition at about 11.30 p.m. he saw the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel near the post office in the electric light having started a motor­cycle on which the deceased Amit and the appellant Mohit Agarwal subse­quently taken that motorcycle was driven by the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel, the appellant Mohit was its pillion rider. 5. According to the deposition of P.W. 3 Sanjay Kumar the deceased has left his house on 11.10.2007 at about 11.15 p.m. in the morning at about 5.30 a.m. on the cellphone of his brother San-tosh information was given from the cellphone of the deceased. It was informed by P.W. 2 that he had seen the deceased in the company of the appellants when they were going on a motorcycle. On 14.10.2007 at about 5.05 p.m. at his residence a telephonic information was given by the police that the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel was arrested, he was making the confessional statement then he also went there and in his pres ence search of the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel was made by the police, from the pocket of the pant, one mobile phone was recovered. He made a confessional statement that he alongwith other co-accused persons including the appellant Mohit Agarwal kidnapped the deceased and thereafter murdered him. He made tiie disclosure about the dead body and in his presence the accused-respondent Raju @ Anuj Patel had taken out the dead body from the pit by removing the mud, other recoveries were also made at the instance of other co-accused persons, the evidence of call details was also collected by the I.O. In such circumstances, the main evidence against the appellant Mohit Agarwal is of the last seen and the recovery of the mobile phone made by the appellant Mohit Agarwal and the co-accused Ram Ji Sha-ran Niranjan, therefore, the appellant Mohit Agarwal is entitled for bail but the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel is not entitled for bail, he is the person on whose pointing out the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the pit, he made the recovery of the dead body from the pit by removing the mud. The evidence of last seen is also against him. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the appellant Raju @ Anuj Patel is refused. 6. Let the appellant Mohit Agarwal convicted in S.T. No. 178 of 2007 and in connected S.T. No. 16 of 2008 under sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Konch District Jalaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 7. The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. 8. Accordingly both the bail applications are disposed of. Bail Applications Disposed Of. _________