- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased was married with Seema, daughter of the applicant - Smt. Kamla. It is alleged that Seema was having an illicit affair with one Govind and for this reason, she did not wish to live in the house of her husband and wanted her husband to live in her parental home. After some differences between the couple, Seema went to her father's house and started living there. The deceased went to his sasural to bring back his wife on 30.8.2011. He informed his brother, the first informant, on cell phone that the would be returning with his wife on the same day, but did not return. When the brother of the deceased went to the sasural of the deceased, he found his shoes and other articles there, but deceased was not found. On 1.9.2011, a search was made for the deceased and his dead body was found in the river. FIR was lodged on 2.9.2011 at 7:30 P.M. suspecting the role of five persons including the applicant in the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that on autopsy, two minor injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which, according to the statement of the doctor, could not have caused death and cause of death was found to be drowning, though mud was found in the trachea and larynx. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased had gone from the house to ease himself, but appears to have drowned by accident. There is no evidence or witness of the fact that the deceased was beaten or taken to the river by the applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant is a lady and she could not have taken the deceased to the river and could not have played an active role in the whole episode, which appears to be a mystery. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail? and submitted that except the wife of the deceased and her family members, none else could have caused the incident.
(3.) THERE may be a strong suspicion against the applicant and other family members, but except the suspicion, no other material has come to surface and, therefore, applicant, being a lady, is entitled to bail. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let applicant Smt. Kamla,? involved in case crime no.295 of 2011 under Sections 147, 302, 201 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and also subject to the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by her; and (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ;