- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. Sri A. K. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Devesh Vikram, Advocate present for the applicant, Sri Surendra Tewari, Advocate present for the complainant and Sri J. P. Singh, Additional Government for the State.
(2.) ACCORDING to F. I. R. , lodged by one Praveen Kumar Singh, son of the deceased lady, Anupama Singh against his father and the present applicant on 4-10-2006 at Police Station Aharaura, District Mirzapur (Case Crime No. 631 of 2006), under Sections 302, 201 I. P. C. , the applicant and his father were close friends. The accused applicant had been persuading the father of the informant named Laxman Singh to sell his land and start mining business, which was vehemently opposed by wife of Laxman Singh. On the night between 3/4 October, 2006, the three children of Laxman Singh and his deceased wife including the informant and his sisters Neha aged about 12 years and Pooja aged about 11 years were all awakened by noise emanating from the bed room of their parents. When they went, they saw that the accused applicant was holding the legs of their deceased mother, while their father Laxman Singh was strangulating her with cloth. Their statements to this effect have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. It will thus appear that there are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence and the eye-witnesses are the son and daughters of one of the accused. It has to be emphasised that they are deposing against their father alongwith the accused applicant. They have no reason to falsely implicate the accused applicant. The accused is specifically named in the First Information Report. On the top of all, when the accused applicant and the husband of the deceased were carrying the dead-body in the four wheeler in the night, they were apprehended by the police, and the dead-body was recovered from the Jeep. With all these evidence available, it can be said without hitch and hesitation that this case is not fit for bail.
(3.) AN argument from the side of the accused applicant was that the accused applicant is said to be merely holding the legs of the deceased lady, and cannot be identified as the killer. To say the least, this is a sham and lame argument and the applicant, who was holding the legs of the lady must be held as much responsible for the murder, as the other person, who strangulated her to death. Bail refused.;