JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits are taken on record. Applications, made therefor, stands disposed of. 2. Applicants Mitlesh and Saurabh, who are in jail in connection with case crime no.93 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B and 506 of IPC, P.S. Buggawala, District Haridwar, have sought their release on bail. 3. As per prosecution story, complainant lodged a first information report on 26.10.2017 at about 06.30 am at P.S. Buggawala, District Haridwar against the present applicants, stating therein that he is a teacher in Paradise School. He was in love with Shivani, resident of same village, and wanted to marry with her, but her mother and brother (present applicants) and some other relatives were not happy with this and they threatened him for dire consequences and also hatched a conspiracy to kill him. On coming to know, when Shivani (deceased) resisted the said act of the accused persons, then in the night of 21/22-10-2017, the applicants and co-accused killed Shivani and with the help of villagers they took the body to the cremation ground and performed the last rites. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR which creates doubt in the prosecution story. He would further submit that the complainant, in order to hide his own guilty, has falsely implicated the applicant and other accused persons. He would further submit that the deceased had just attained the age of majority. The complainant, being the teacher, had been giving tuitions to the deceased and taking advantage of the adolescence and immature age, was exploiting her sexually from last two years and, in order to hide his own guilt, had in fact administered heavy anti-pregnancy pills to the deceased, due to which on the date of incident, deceased was bleeding and was complaining of pain in the abdomen and due to excessive bleeding, deceased has died. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that alleged incident occurred in the residential area in a house where there were other houses also but there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that alleged incident occurred in the residential area in a house where there were other houses also but there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. He would further submit that, as per prosecution story, father of the deceased has stated in his statement, recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. that his wife Mitlesh had caught deceased feet and his son Saurabh had pressed her mouth and neck and due to throttling, deceased has died, but one thing which creates doubt that on seeing the incident he remained a mute spectator and did not try to call anyone from his neighborhood so as to save the life of his deceased daughter. Even, after the incident, he did not try to lodge FIR of the incident. Learned counsel further submits that Rajendra Singh has denied the fact of giving any statement before the I.O. Learned counsel would further submit that the complainant has lodged the FIR against the applicants in connivance with the police, as in the case, rejoinder affidavit has now been filed by Rajendra Singh, wherein he has specifically stated that he never made any statement before the police; police is acting on false complaint submitted by complainant Ajay Singh; his daughter has died due to excessive bleeding and the applicant and co-accused are innocent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused bail application, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 7. Along with the counter affidavit, statement of complainant, witnesses as well as accused persons have been annexed. Complainant appeared before the trial court and got himself examined as PW1. In his statement, he has supported the prosecution case. Cross-examination of this witness was deferred on the requested of counsel for the accused. Statement of Rajendra Singh, who is alleged eyewitness of the case and father of the deceased, was also recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he has specifically stated that on date and time of incident, he was sleeping in the room. Meanwhile, at about 3-4 am, he heard the noise of quarrel, where upon he went inside and found that his wife and son Saurabh were committing Marpeet with the deceased. He interfered in the fight but the accused persons pushed him outside the room saying that the deceased has brought disgrace to family. Meanwhile, at about 3-4 am, he heard the noise of quarrel, where upon he went inside and found that his wife and son Saurabh were committing Marpeet with the deceased. He interfered in the fight but the accused persons pushed him outside the room saying that the deceased has brought disgrace to family. He further stated that his wife had caught her feet and his son Saurabh had pressed his mouth and neck, due to which she has died. He further stated that except these two persons (applicants), no one else were involved in the crime. Thereafter, Saurabh along with his one friend, took the dead body to the cremation ground and disposed of the body. 8. It is not the case of the applicants that the deceased has died a natural death. According to them, she was given some anti-pregnancy pills due to which she started excessive bleeding and due to this reason she has died. It is a settled law that a man may speak lie but circumstances never. Whatsoever be the reason, one thing is clear that the deceased Shivani has died an unnatural death, in mysterious circumstances, as the applicants who are mother and brother of the deceased, did not make any effort to get the postmortem done of the body or to inform the police. In the opinion of the Court, though the complainant belongs to the same case, but it might be a case of ‘honour killing' as the deceased and the complainant were in love affair, which brought down the honour of the family of the accused. Insofar as the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicants that the statement made by the complainant is wholly unreliable and that the FIR has been lodged in the instant case in connivance with the police, is a matter of scrutiny and would be adjudicated by the trial court. As regards the submission made by counsel that Rajendra Singh, father of the deceased, has filed the rejoinder affidavit and has supported the innocence of the applicants, this Court finds that initially the affidavits in support of both the bail applications were filed by Kishan Singh, and it is at the subsequent stage, at the time of filing of the rejoinder affidavit, that Rajendra Singh came forward. It is quite natural that Rajendra Singh, who initially gave statement against the applicants, upon seeing that his only wife and sonare behind the bars and will face trial, being the family member and head of the family, came in support of the applicants. 9. Considering the entire conspectus of things, in my considered view, this is not a fit case for bail. Bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed. It is clarified that the trial Court shall decide the trial independently, untrammeled by the observations made in the order.