JUDGMENT : PUNEET GUPTA, J. 1. The applicant-accused Mst. Raksha Devi has filed application for grant of bail on the ground that she has been implicated falsely in FIR No. 14/2018 registered with Police Station, Dharamkund, District Ramban. The challan has been presented against the applicant-accused and three other persons under Section 302/120-B/201/34 RPC out of above said FIR. Separate Challan has been presented against Aklesh Singh, minor, who has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board vide judgment dated 19.10.2019. It is submitted that 22 prosecution witnesses out of 27 witnesses cited in the challan stand examined by the prosecution. The bail application filed before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramban, stands dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2020. It is further submitted that the perusal of the statements of the witnesses recorded so far do not make out that the applicant has committed the offence. The accused is entitled to bail in view of sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has a male child aged 6 years who requires care of the applicant. The mother of the accused-applicant has been enlarged on bail by the court of Sessions vide order dated 20.11.2018. 2. The objections to the application have been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the case set up by the prosecution in the challan has been detailed. The accused having committed non-bailable offence the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is also mentioned that in case the bail is granted to the applicant the prosecution evidence may be tampered with by the applicant. 3. The accused along with the co-accused persons is alleged to be involved in the murder of Jagdish Singh, husband of the applicant-accused herein. The apprehension of the applicant Raksha Devi that her husband may contract second marriage and she may be deprived of the property including the FDRs and LIC Policies held by the husband resulted into conspiracy of eliminating the said Jagdish Singh and for that Kasturi Lal was also hired. On the intervening night of 15/16.04.2016 the said Jagdish Singh was allegedly murdered by the accused persons by inflicting a blow of axe on the forehead of the victim. On the intervening night of 15/16.04.2016 the said Jagdish Singh was allegedly murdered by the accused persons by inflicting a blow of axe on the forehead of the victim. After carrying out the said act the body of the deceased was placed in a car and driven to Kanga road and the vehicle along with the dead body was thrown in a nallah. The FIR was initially registered under Section 279/304-A RPC. During investigation, the involvement of the applicant-accused and others in the alleged murder of Jagdish Singh was found. 4. The perusal of the challan reveals that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is set up on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel for the applicant while taking the court through some of the statements of the witnesses has submitted that the statements of the witnesses do not involve the applicant in the alleged commission of offence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the court cannot finally determine the role of the applicant in the present application though the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The trial court has dismissed the bail application of the applicant and the evidence that has come on record does not entitle the applicant to bail. 6. The accused is in custody for the last more than four years. 7. It is for the trial court to critically examine the prosecution evidence and not for this Court to examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses in detail and determine their veracity in the present application. No doubt charges against the applicant-accused are serious in nature as she is alleged to have conspired and participated in the murder of her husband. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused is only circumstantial in nature. The allegations leveled against the applicant are yet to be proved. The innocence of the accused is presumed till the charges are proved against him in the trial. 8. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 carves out an exception whereby bail can be granted to a person who is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm in offence where the punishment can even be death or imprisonment for life. 8. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 carves out an exception whereby bail can be granted to a person who is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm in offence where the punishment can even be death or imprisonment for life. Section 497 Cr.P.C. as was earlier applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir also provided for grant of bail to such person who is under the age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirm person who is accused of aforesaid offences. 9. In case titled Fata vs. State, 1999 KLJ 159 and Girija Koul vs. State and Others, 2011 (1) JKJ 508 , this Court granted bail to the accused allegedly involved in offence under Section 302 RPC keeping in view the provisions of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the provisions of law do provide bail for a woman accused for offences as in the present case and the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses stand examined, the applicant influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or jumping over the bail cannot be comprehended, the court finds no reason not to accept the application. 11. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and surety bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the trial court. The accused shall attend the challan proceedings as per directions of the trial court and shall not impede the trial in any manner. 12. The application is accordingly disposed of.