Harsh Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. or the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that according to prosecution story there was some dispute between deceased and co-accused Ganja Raju over money upon which he had threatened the deceased; that in the statements of father and brother of deceased as well as of Sachin under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only doubt has been expressed on the basis of rumour about threat by Raju, Monu, Kuldeep as well as the applicant to the deceased; that the statement of Somu, the nephew of deceased and son of first informant has been recorded after four days of the incident in which he has stated to have last seen the deceased going by Tempo along with accused Raju, Monu, Kuldeep and the applicant; that in the confessional statement of co-accused Monu, who has admitted to have caused death of deceased, the applicant has been given role of catching hold; that the applicant had no concern with the deceased and had no reason to cause his death; that there are material contradictions in the st