JUDGMENT :

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Anand Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The applicant, Suraj Verma, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and property dispute situated in the same village.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. in unknown. There is no any whisper about the applicant in the F.I.R. and even though F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the alleged incident of missing of minor daughter of complainant, that too, without any plausible explanation of delay.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.05.2022 after the dead body of the victim was recovered from a well wherein he developed his case and false story has been made that applicant and the victim were in relation and false promise of marriage was made by the applicant with her, and when the applicant had refused to marry with the victim then she committed suicide.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that entire case is built up by the complainant after the legal advice and afterthought. No such incident, as alleged by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., took place.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the postmortem of the deceased no external injury was found on her entire body and cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that reference of mobile No. 9935885772 which was given by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not belong to the applicant and he never talked with the deceased on her mobile as alleged by the complainant. The Investigating Agency also failed to collect any evidence against the applicant regarding alleged mobile number and there is no proof that the said number belongs to the applicant. It is also a case of the applicant that the said mobile number and simcard was never recovered from the possession of application. Further the case of applicant is that he was neither having any love affair with the deceased, nor he has made any promise of marriage with the deceased. The victim has never moved any complaint to any authority that application was in relation with her on giving false promise of marriage and now he had refused for the same. The entire story was developed by the complainant after recovery of dead body of the deceased from the well, otherwise there must be some whisper in the F.I.R. regarding the relation of applicant with the deceased. The main dispute regarding false implication of applicant is that there is a land dispute between the family members of the applicant and the deceased. The said land is adjacent to each other, which is evident from Khatauni of the property, which fact has been stated in para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is also a case of the applicant that earlier the mother of the deceased had also threatened the mother of the applicant that she will implicate the applicant in a case, regarding which mother of applicant has moved an application on 19.10.2021 before the concerned police station on 19.10.2021, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statements of interested witnesses cannot be said to be reliable as they have given false statement in support of the prosecu