Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3782 (ALL)

Vijai Laxmi v. State of U. P.

2009-12-16

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT: Ravindra Singh, J. 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. 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. 2. 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. 2. 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. 3. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A.and counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that there was a strong motive of the applicant and her husband to commit the murder of the deceased. The applicant and other co-accused were seen when they were causing injuries. The first informant and other others came at the place of occurrence at the shouting of the deceased. Prior to that the injury of the neck would have been caused which was a ligature mark. The first informant was living along with the deceased in the same house. The FIR has been promptly lodged, the prosecution story is corroborated by the post mortem examination report, therefore, the bail may not be granted to the applicant. Prior to that the injury of the neck would have been caused which was a ligature mark. The first informant was living along with the deceased in the same house. The FIR has been promptly lodged, the prosecution story is corroborated by the post mortem examination report, therefore, the bail may not be granted to the applicant. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that the record in this case the FIR has been lodged on 7.6.2009 at 6.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 6/7.6.2009 between 1.00 to 3.00 a.m., the applicant and her husband are named in the FIR, the active role of causing the injuries by way of using Sabbal, Danda & Iron pipe has been assigned. According to post mortem examination report, 9 ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. 4. Accordingly, this application is rejected.