RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Daga the learned counsel for the complainant
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Kajal with the prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime no. 253 of 2009 under sections 364, 394, 411, 302, 201 and120-B IPC. P.S. Nai Mandi district Muzaffaragar. The fact, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Raghuraj Garg on 6.2.2009 at about 20.35 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.2.2009 at 1.30 p.m. and thereafter the applicant Kajal and the co-accused Sattar who happened to be the brother of some M.L.A. are named in the F.I.R., the F.I.R. has been lodged under section 364 I.P.C., thereafter, offence under sections 394,411,302,201 and 120-B I.P.C. had been added during investigation, it is alleged that the deceased Madan Garg left his house on 14.2.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. by saying his wife that he was called by the applicant and co-accused Sattar to Roorkee for necessary work and the meeting was necessary, the deceased has gone by his own car no. H.R.99B.M. 5724 by driving himself, his mobile phone no. 9997478777. it was alleged in the F.I.R. he did not come back, in the meantime on 4.2.2009 at about 9.25 p.m. a call was given on mobile phone no. 9927047988, which was of the wife of the deceased from the mobile phone of the deceased in which the deceased was weeping saying that he is in trouble, after knowing that the life of the deceased was in danger the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R., the first informant came to Roorkee in search of the deceased Madan Garg and contacted the applicant who made a confessional statement before the first informant that the deceased was called by her by giving a telephonic message at the saying of her husband Akhil Dutta, and Rajesh Kalter at the house of one Sanny Kashyap, she was not knowing that the deceased was called by her husband in furtherance of a conspiracy because her husband has known her relation with the deceased that is why she was made a party of that conspiracy at the house of Sanny Kashyap, the deceased was murdered by Vijay Sharma, Manjeet Khokhar and Sanny Kashyap and Suleman Nemil, thereafter his dead body was thrown somewhere else. The vehicle of the deceased was recovered by the police on 13.2.2009 in which the applicant and other co-accused person were sitting, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Ganga Naher at a distance of 1 k.m. from Mehboobpur Power House, the applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar who rejected the same on 22.5.2009.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances are of week in nature, which are not completing the chain of circumstances to show that the applicant has participated in the commission of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution version also,the applicant was having illicit relation with the deceased, address of the applicant was also not known, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the first informant, who stated that any how she could search the applicant, on contact she narrated the whole prosecution story, there was no reason for narrating the story by the applicant to the first informant, if the applicant was having love affairs with the deceased, who was killed, the disclosure would not serve any purpose, the first informant changed the earlier version stating that only she had stated that she had received message on mobile in which Rs. 20,00,000/- was demanded as ransom for which it is stated that the statement made by him that some message was given by the miscreants to mislead him. In fact, it was not a message for non fulfillment of demand of ransom. In fact, he was murdered on account of having illicit relation with the applicant. The alleged recovery of Indica Car No. H.R.95 B.M.5724, which was belonging to the deceased from the bypass road of Muzaffarnagar from the possession of the applicant, co-accused Manjeet Khokhar and Sanny Kashyap on 13.2.2009 was planted, it was not recovered as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, true fact is that the applicant was picked up along with her sister Neelam on 5.2.2009 from the house of her mother, then Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the applicant moved an application on 13.2.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. in respect of the said incident on which the learned C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar called for the report and fixed a date 16.2.2009, the recovery of the vehicle was not made as alleged, the recovered car was standing at the Taxi Stand since 5.2.2009 it was taken into custody by the police on 11.9.2009 at 12.00 a.m. its entry has been made in the relevant register of the Taxi Stand, the vehicle was taken by the police from Bittu, who was in the night duty and the recovery of the dead body has also been planted, the applicant is a respectable lady, she was having no relationship with the deceased, husband of the deceased is a class I officer, working in the department of defense Dehradun, the applicant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.;