ORDER Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the father of the deceased. 3. It appears that Velcee (Accused No. 3) was having an extra marital affair with Suketu (Accused No. 1) and she conspired to have her husband murdered by Suketu (Accused No. 1). It also appears that the driver of Suketu - Dhirendrasingh (Accused No. 2) was also involved in the crime. 4. According to Velcee, on or about 28th June, 2016, 2-3 unknown persons came to her house and killed her husband. From the allegations made, it appears that this story was concocted by Velcee to try and shift the blame from the person with whom she was having an extra marital affair i.e. Suketu. 5. After investigations, on 25th September, 2016, a charge sheet was filed against all the three accused. In the meanwhile on 30th June, 2016, the accused persons were arrested. We are told that so far as Velcee is concerned, she has a 11/2 years old child and for that reason, she was granted bail. 6. As far as Dhirendrasingh is concerned, he filed an application for bail which was rejected by the Sessions Judge but was eventually allowed by the High Court vide Judgment dated 28.11.2017. 7. We have gone through the material on record and it does appear to us prima facie without arriving at any definite conclusion in that regard that the entire episode was stage managed by Velcee to get rid of her husband so that she could perhaps live with Suketu (Accused No. 1). 8. We have also been shown the number and nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased. On going through the post mortem Report, we find that nine injuries with a knife were inflicted upon the deceased and some of the injuries are extremely deep i.e. upto 14cm. In other words, it does appear that the killing of the deceased was in a brutal manner. There also appears to be some evidence to indicate the presence of Dhirendrasingh in the premises including the statement of the guard and some CCTV footage. We do not propose to go into this since it is a matter of evidence which will have to be looked into by the Trial Judge. 9. There also appears to be some evidence to indicate the presence of Dhirendrasingh in the premises including the statement of the guard and some CCTV footage. We do not propose to go into this since it is a matter of evidence which will have to be looked into by the Trial Judge. 9. In our opinion, the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of offence and the manner and circumstances in which the offence under Section 302, IPC was committed. 10. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 28.11.2017 and direct the State to take Dhirendrasingh into custody immediately. 11. The criminal appeals are disposed of. Appeal allowed.