S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first informant claimed in the FIR that he had gone to school at 9:30 a.m. on 6.9.2011 after taking his meals and at 12:30 in the afternoon, he received information by phone that his house was on fire. He came to his house, but by then, neighbours had broken open the lock of the door and were busy in extinguishing the fire. He also engaged himself in the same activity and suddenly his hand touched the body of his wife, but she had died and her body was found in a burnt condition. LEARNED counsel contends that on autopsy, multiple incised wounds were found over left lower cheek and on front of neck. Ante mortem burn injuries were also found in front of lower part of chest, abdomen, back etc. It was further submitted that the police found burnt clothes of the deceased, ashes and one cap of half bottle of liquor from the spot. Next day, one Ashish Botham was interrogated, but he did not disclose any fact to the police and he stated that he did not see anything. Subsequently, on 14.9.2011, Ashish Botham was again interrogated and in his second statement, he stated that he had seen the applicant Ashok Kumar visiting the house of the deceased on 6.9.2011 at 10:30 a.m. and further stated that the deceased was having illicit relations with the applicant. The applicant was married about five months earlier and to get rid of the deceased, she was killed. Subsequently, on 24.9.2011, one Yogendra Pratap Singh claimed that he had also seen the applicant going to the house of the deceased at 10:30 a.m. on 6.9.2011. On 27.9.2011, one Krishan Kushwaha claimed that on 6.9.2011 at 11:30 a.m., he had seen the applicant coming out of the house of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that according to the prosecution, the applicant had made a call on the mobile phone of the deceased at 10:29 a.m. on the date of incident and the applicant had no reason or enmity to commit murder of the wife of the first informant. It was further submitted that the alleged witnesses are neighbours of the first informant, but they did not disclose anything to the police for a considerable time and their subsequent statements are simply afterthought. It was further contended that the first informant claims that he received information that his house was on fire, but it was not the case found by the investigating officer. The house was not on fire. In the room, where dead body was found, bed, sofa, table, computer etc. were not damaged. There was no damage to the house because of fire. In these circumstances the story that the house caught fire and he was informed by somebody and he came to the spot is entirely false and concocted. It was further contended that if there were any illicit relations between the applicant and the deceased, it was the first informant who was an aggrieved party and he had the motive to kill his wife. It was next submitted that one witness claimed that he had seen the applicant coming out from the house of the deceased, but the informant claims that the neighbours entered his house after breaking open the lock of the door, but nobody saw the door being locked by the applicant and the door could have been locked only by the first informant. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of the first informant and he wanted to get rid of the deceased and, therefore, she was killed. Witnesses saw the applicant going inside the house and coming out of the house of the deceased. Witnesses kept mum for a considerable time. Even Ashish Botham, in his first statement, did not disclose any fact. Other witnesses came forward after more than two weeks. The needle of suspicion equally points towards the first informant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
(3.) LET applicant Ashok Kumar involved in case crime no.698 of 2011 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him ; 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. ;