Sushil Harkauli and R.R. Prasad, JJ. - (1.) HEARD both the sides.
(2.) THE PWs2 and PW3 have been declared hostile. PWs4 and PW5 are left on the basis of which conviction has been recorded. PW5 is the father of the deceased girl. THE deceased lady was married to the appellant in the year, 1997. She lived with her husband for ten years and bore four children. Subsequently there were differences and litigation was started by the lady against the husband, which is said to be motive of the alleged murder. According to PW5, the deceased lady was forcibly taken away on a tempo by the appellant his mistress who is the co-accused and three-four other persons in the morning of 18th August, 2008. THE dead body of the deceased lady was recovered on 20th August, 2008, after which the FlR/fardbeyan to the above effect was given by PW5, who is the informant in this case. Although PW4 as well as PW5 have said that information about the alleged abduction of the deceased was given to the Court by means of application by the lawyer of the deceased, but no such application has been produced to evidence during the trial which would corroborate giving of prompt information of the alleged abduction. PW5 says that he gave information of this to the Superintendent of Police but not to the police station, which is also not proved. Prima facie, if the PW5 had told the lawyer of his daughter about the incident and the lawyer had moved an application as alleged in the Court narrating the incident of forcible abduction, it is very unlike that the police would not have been informed by the informant or the lawyer, in an attempt to get recovery of the abducted victim.
(3.) THEREFORE, from the evidence on record, it would appear that for two days after the alleged abduction, the informant who is father of the deceased remained quite and lodged the FIR giving out the story of the two days old abduction only after the dead body of his daughter has been recovered. Co-accused has been granted bail by the order dated 23rd October, 2010 in her Cri Misc. (DB) No. 900 of 2010. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, in furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Deoghar in connection with SC No. 71 of 2009. Application allowed.;