RAVINDRA SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P., Sri N.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and perused the record.
(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Vijay Laxmi with a prayer that she may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1610 of 2009 under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Rajendra Kumar on 7.6.2009 on 6.30 a.m in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 6/7-6-2009 between 1 to 3.00 a.m., the applicant and co-accused Kallu Shiv Hare are named in the FIR as accused, two miscreants were unknown. It is alleged that the deceased was a tenant of the applicant and her husband Kallu Shiv Hare. He was involved in the business of sale and purchase of food-grains with co-accused Kallu Shiv Hare, but co-accused Kallu Shiv Hare had sold 150 bags of urad dishonestly, its account has not been given to the deceased. The deceased was demanding its account. On this account, there was dispute between the parties. The deceased had purchased a Maruti Car in the partner-ship of Kallu Shiv Hare, the same was in possession of the co-accused Kallu Shiv Hare. Due to this dispute, the applicant was pressurising the deceased by way of extended the threats to vacate her house. In the night of 6/7.6.2009, between 1 to 3 a.m., the applicant and other co-accused caused the injuries on the person of the deceased by using Sabbal, Danda and Iron pipe. According to post mortem examination report, the deceased had sustained nine ante mortem injuries in which injury no. 7 was ligature mark over neck, remaining injuries were lacerated wounds, the cause of death was due to ante mortem injuries, applicant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, who rejected the same on 24.8.2009.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a woman, she has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the doubt and suspicion, the first informant and other witnesses were not residing in the same house where the alleged occurrence had taken place. According to the FIR itself, they came at the place of occurrence at shouting of the deceased, it shows that they had not seen the alleged incident. There was no dispute between the applicant and the deceased even the husband of the applicant has not purchased the Maruti car in the partner ship of the deceased. The applicant was not present at the alleged place of occurrence. The Maruti Car was in the name of the applicant, it was not in the name of the deceased. The ligature mark of the deceased has not been explained. It shows that in the morning dead body was found thereafter the FIR has been lodged, in fact, the alleged incident was not witnessed by any person. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, she may be released on bail.;