Amar Saran and Ramesh Sinha, JJ. - Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned AGA. 2. A prayer for Bail has been made in this criminal appeal which has been filed against a judgment and order dated 26.2.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Auratya in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprison­ment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year, for the offence under section 302 read with section 341.P.C. 3. A First Information Report was registered on 3-11-2006 at 6,30 a.m. against the appellant by PW-2 Ram Autar, father of the deceased Alok Kumar at police station Achhalda alleging that his son Alok Kumar aged about 26 years was running a ready-made clothes shop in Achhalda. On 2-11-2006 at about 7.00 p.m. when the deceased was crossing the house of PW-1 Kanhaiya lal, then the appellant Smt. Archana Shukla wife of Navin Kumar, who resided in the said house as a tenant, invited the deceased to her room. At 11.30 p.m. Kallu, Kishan and Mahendra Singh who were also residents of the said house reached the in­formant's house in Mohamdabad and told him that the condition of his son was seri­ous. He immediatey left for Achhalda and arrived at the room of the appellant where he saw the deceased lying on the floor in a dead condition in his underwear and vest. He expressed suspicion against Smt. Ar-chana of having committed the murder by pressing the neck of the deceased by herself or with the aid of some accomplice. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that no documentary evidence by way of rent receipts, tenancy note etc. have been produced by P.W. 1 Kanhaiya lal, house owner for showing that Smt. Ar-chana Shukla used to reside in the upper portion of the house. There was no reason for the appellant to reside in the said house, in preference to Tahraijpur or Mohammad-abad because she belonged to Mohamda-bad which was six kilometres away and she was working as a Shiksha Mitra at Vil­lage Tahrajpur which was one kilometer away from Mohamdabad. Her husband was in service in Kanpur and she had two children who were residing with her in-laws at Mohammadabad. Her husband was in service in Kanpur and she had two children who were residing with her in-laws at Mohammadabad. It was further argued that the inquest report does not mention that the deceased was found in the room in the tenancy of the appellant. It was also urged that the deceased may have been residing in the said room. It had wrongly been mentioned that the deceased was seriously ill when Kallu, Mahendra Singh and other persons went to Mohamdabad to give information regard­ing the murder of the deceased in the ap­pellant's room at Achhalda. He further ar­gued that the deceased may have been murdered by the other tenants or inmates of the house and the body may have been thrown into the appellant's room, 5. It is also argued that PW-1 Kan­haiya lal and PW-2 Ram Autar have falsely stated that Archana was present at the time of incident and she was arrested on same day and was taken to the police station, as PW-6, Sobaran Singh, Investigating Officer, has stated that Archana was arrested on 24.11.2006, and the fact of her being ar­rested at the spot was also not mentioned by the informant in this FIR or in his state­ment under section 161 Cr.P.C. The FIR which was lodged in the morning of 3.11.2006 at 6.30 a.m. was delayed as admit­tedly the informant was given information of the incident in his home at Mohammad­abad at 11.30 p.m. on 2.11.06. Some dis­crepancies as to whether the report was lodged at 1.30 a.m in the night of 2/3-11-2006 or at 6.30 a.m. on 3.11.2006 have also been raised. 6. The reply of the prosecution to these contentions was that there was no reason for Kanhaiya lal and other wit­nesses deposing that the appellant was re­siding in the upper portion of the aforesaid house, if in fact she was not residing there. It was possible in case she had a relation­ship with the deceased or for any other private reason to have chosen to reside in the said house in Achalda, instead of her own home in Mohammadabad or in Tehrajpur where she was working as a Shiksha Mitra. It was possible in case she had a relation­ship with the deceased or for any other private reason to have chosen to reside in the said house in Achalda, instead of her own home in Mohammadabad or in Tehrajpur where she was working as a Shiksha Mitra. Even the cross-examination of PW 1 Kanhaiya lal was to the effect that there was some dispute of Kanhaiya lal with Archana because he wanted her to leave his premises, as he was not happy with the appellant who was a single woman at Achalda, inviting male visitors like the de­ceased to her house in the night. By this cross-examination the appellant implicitly admits her presence in the house. Apart from making a bald statement that she was not residing in the said house she has not given evidence of residing many other place which burden lay on her to discharge. The inquest report does not need to contain the details regarding the occupancy of a particular room by the appellant as it men­tions that it was in the house of PW-1, Kan­haiya lal where the dead body of the de­ceased was found in the upper room. The site plan clearly mentions that the said room was in the occupation of the appel­lant. In the long written statement of the appellant there was not even a whisper that the deceased and not the appellant was residing in the said house. 7. So far as describing the deceased as ill and not dead to his father by the wit­nesses when they reached Mohamadabad, this may have occurred been because the witnesses may have been misled by the appellant who had called them upstairs after the deceased had died in her house, perhaps to create an impression that the deceased had died due to heart attack or any other normal course. She could take this plea because there was no visible bloody injury on the body, and the wit­nesses may have realized that this was an unnatural death on subsequently noticing the ligature mark on the neck of the de­ceased or when it was seen during inquest or by the doctor conducting the post mor­tem who reported the case to be one of strangulation. 8. 8. Alternatively the information of the deceased being only ill and not dead may have been given by the witnesses to the family members of the deceased to pre­vent them from getting unduly alarmed at that stage. 9. It was loo far-fetched that any one else (such as the other tenants or house in­mates) could have committed the crime, because there was no good reason why the liability for the crime would have been foisted on the appellant who was a woman, if she had was not actually involved in it. In such circumstance the onus under section 106 of the Evidence Act squarely lay on the appellant to explain as to how the deceased was found dead in his underwear and vest on the floor in the premises occupied by her, which onus, it was submitted, the ap­pellant had miserably failed to discharge. 10. It was argued by learned AGA that there appear to be some defects in investi­gation, but unfairness or incompetence on part of the Investigating Officer provides no ground for casting aside the entire prosecution case. There was no reason for the informant to have sent a telegram on 8.11.2006 making a complaint against the Investigating Officer that he had picked up the appellant after the incident on 3.11.2006 and later released her, if such a thing had not actually occurred. Thereafter the appel­lant was taken into custody on 24.11.2006. A plastic rope used for strangulating the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the appellant after her arrest. 11. An FIR which was lodged at 6.30 a.m. after an incident which takes place before 11.30 p.m. the previous night cannot be said to be delayed as the informant who was a resident of Mohammadabad had to go to Achalda, 6 kms away for taking stock of the situation before lodging the report. The alleged discrepancies in the time of FIR,and other minor discrepancies pointed out by the appellants Counsel are matters for appreciation at the final hearing of the ap­peal. The chain of circumstances for show­ing the complicity of the appellant in this crime are therefore sufficiently established. The appellant was also not released on bail during trial. 12. Having considered the submis­sions of the parties, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant, Smt. Archana. The chain of circumstances for show­ing the complicity of the appellant in this crime are therefore sufficiently established. The appellant was also not released on bail during trial. 12. Having considered the submis­sions of the parties, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant, Smt. Archana. Her prayer for bail is accordingly refused. 13. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. 14. Office is directed to prepare the paper book preferably within four months and to list the appeal for hearing thereafter. Bail Refused.