- (1.) Learned counsel for the appellants states that he has given notice in writing to Sri. Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the complainant but he has chosen not to appear in the Court. Copy of the said notice filed by the learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased Smt. Sandhya committed suicide after assaulting her child Shubham with a knife as she was unhappy that her husband was working out side. Two prosecution witnesses P.W. 2, Mohd. Alam, and P.W. 6 Ashok have proved that the door had to be cut open by Ashok and thereafter it was found that the dead body of Smt. Sandhya was lying on the bed and her son Shubham was also lying in an injured condition. Shubham was taken to the hospital by the two appellants i.e., Sahawoo the grandfather and one Bua of the child Shubham. The appellants would not have taken the child to hospital if they had assaulted him. As the prosecution has not produced the injury report of the child, they have deliberately suppressed an Important document. Smt. Sandhya was found dead with a knife in her hand as mentioned in the inquest report. It has further been submitted that four persons have been made accused in this case. All the 4 persons could not be held gu(sic)y as a single injury was found on the (sic)ck of the deceased, and that 4 persons could not be made accused by using the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act that they failed to explain how the deceased died. Furthermore the appellants have suggested that the deceased after assaulting her child, cut her own neck with a knife after locking the door.
(2.) On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that from the place of incident the knife recovered by the Investigating Officer did not correspond in size with the injury of the deceased, and he has stated that he had not found any cut on the door. Learned counsel for the appellants replied that no suggestion was given to the witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 Ashok that his averment that he cut the door was incorrect, or that the appellant Kiran had not called Ashok to cut the door, as she was afraid that the deceased was trying to commit suicide.
(3.) Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we find it a fit case for bail. Let the appellants Smt. Surja, Km. Kiran, Km. Malti and Sahawoo convicted on 4.11.2010 by Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Sant Kabir Nagar in S.T. No. 89 of 2009. State v. Smt. Surja and others, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned. Realization of half of the fine of amount from all the appellant shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal.;