ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri T. Pradhyumma Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused No. 1 and Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the application is disposed of. The present application came to be filed, by A1 seeking bail on the ground that there is no material to connect her with the crime. As seen from the record, originally A1 along with two others were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.']. The learned Sessions Court while acquitting A2 and A3 of all the charges levelled against them found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and consequently directed her to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week. 2. The facts, in issue, are as under: a) A1 is said to have developed illicit intimacy with A2. Naveen Naidu ['deceased'], son of A1, was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and studying in Saradha Bala Kuteer, Ongole, by staying in a hostel. A2 is said to have suggested A1 to do away with the deceased by administering poison as he would be a hurdle in their relationship. As per the case of the prosecution, about 10 day's prior to 26.11.2011, A2 is said to have given whiter colour poison and bottle of honey directing A1 to administer the poison along with honey to the deceased. b) On 27.11.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., A1 went to the school of the deceased and took him to the hostel room. As the room was locked, she asked the deceased to get it opened as she intends to use the toilet. On that, P.W. 8 who was present there, requested A1 to use the open bathroom but the deceased requested P.W. 8 to get the keys of the room. Accordingly, P.W. 8 went and asked P.W. 10 - mess in-charge about the arrival of A1. P.W. 10 handed over the keys with instructions to return the same after the departure of A1. Accordingly, P.W. 8 went and asked P.W. 10 - mess in-charge about the arrival of A1. P.W. 10 handed over the keys with instructions to return the same after the departure of A1. Thereafter, A1 and deceased entered into the room, talked together for some time and, thereafter, A1 left, About half an hour later, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and others noticed the deceased lying on the floor. As such, they broke open the door and took him to the hospital where he was declared, dead. Then P.W. 2 - father of the deceased presented a report. On receiving the same, P.W. 21 - Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. A panchanama of the scene was conducted from where he collected vomited substance under Ex. P12 and after altering the section of law to Section 302, 201, 120B I.P.C., filed a charge-sheet. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 26 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P38. 4. Sri T. Pradhyumma Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner mainly submits that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, no suspicion was entertained against the Petitioner at any point of time. Long after the incident, the body was exhumed and post-mortem was conducted which shows that the death was due to cardio-respiratory failure. In view of the above, he would submit that the Petitioner may be granted bail pending disposal of the appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident, but the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution prima facie establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the evidence of P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 16, P.W. 24, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, whose evidence establish the Petitioner being 'last seen' in the company of the deceased at 11.30 a.m. in the hostel room, the body being found-in the hostel room by 12.00 Noon. 7. P.W. 7 in his evidence deposed as under: "On 27.11.2011, after completion of breakfast to all the students, I have taken them to the school's ground for games. 7. P.W. 7 in his evidence deposed as under: "On 27.11.2011, after completion of breakfast to all the students, I have taken them to the school's ground for games. At about 12 noon, A1-Sasi Rekha came and asked my permission to take her son Naveen Naidu for outing. Accordingly, I permitted her, she took the boy from the playground. Half an hour later, the mess-in-charge by name Venkata Ramanaiah informed me by phone that he observed the Naveen Naidu in semi unconscious state with vomiting in the hostel room. Immediately I rushed to the room, noticed the Naveen Naidu and then taken him to Nalluri Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole, there the doctor attended and declared that the boy was brought dead. Immediately we informed the incident to our Correspondent - Ramesh Babu, on his instructions we informed the same to P.W. 2. Ex. P11 is my report given to the police, II Town PS, Ongole, dated 27.11.2011 at 2.00 p.m. police inquired me and recorded my statement. Subsequently, the police inquired me i.e., after exhumation of the dead body of the deceased. Mother of the deceased is sole responsible for the death of the deceased, since the incident occurred within half an hour, after taking the boy from my control. We used to allow the parents of the children to the hostel rooms." 8. P.W. 8 who was a roommate of the deceased deposed as under: "On 27.11.2011 on Sunday after completion of breakfast, I have attended the social class, after a small break, there will be English exam and I attended, completed it by 10.30 a.m. The students are playing games in the playground, but I have not attended due to my injury my teeth. I was in habit of collecting interesting facts in the newspapers and used to paste the cut pieces of papers in a notebook. Revanth is my friend and he is day scholar. After purchasing the newspaper, the said Revanth dropped me at the hostel and he went back on his bicycle. As the hostel was found locked, I sat on pail and started reading the newspaper which I purchased on the day. My room and the room in which Naveen Naidu staying are locked. There is only one grill door lock for both the rooms. The key will be with the mess in-charge Kamineni Venkata Ramanaiah. As the hostel was found locked, I sat on pail and started reading the newspaper which I purchased on the day. My room and the room in which Naveen Naidu staying are locked. There is only one grill door lock for both the rooms. The key will be with the mess in-charge Kamineni Venkata Ramanaiah. At about 10-45 a.m. Naveen Naidu and his mother came to the room and his mother asked me "where is the bathroom", accordingly, I have showed it. Naveen Naidu asked me to bring the keys from the mess in-charge. Accordingly, I went and brought the keys. I have opened the grill door and went to my room. Naveen Naidu and his mother [A1] went to his room. The other students Bellam Srikanth and Medagam Srikanth Reddy came to my room, out of these two one is the roommate of Naveen Naidu. In order to provide privacy to the mother and child [A1 and Naveen Naidu] his roommate came to my room. After sometime both of them went outside the room to watch, whether his mother left the room or not. They returned and told me that mother is staying still in the room and went back i.e., at about 11.30 a.m. At about 12-15 noon I noticed some galata outside the rooms. I noticed the warden [P.W. 7] and others are trying to open the doors of the room as Naveen Naidu was found in unconscious in the room, the doors are bolted from inside, by using force, P.W. 7 and others got opened the doors, we noticed Naveen Naidu found lying on the mat, touching the stomach and face with vomiting around him. I tested his pulse and breathing and found negative. I sent a student available there to bring the hostel's van, but vehicle is not available, we shifted Naveen Naidu in a private auto to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, got him admitted in causality ward. Then P.W. 7 instructed me to go to the hostel. Accordingly, I went back and learnt that Naveen Naidu died. Police inquired me." 9. I sent a student available there to bring the hostel's van, but vehicle is not available, we shifted Naveen Naidu in a private auto to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, got him admitted in causality ward. Then P.W. 7 instructed me to go to the hostel. Accordingly, I went back and learnt that Naveen Naidu died. Police inquired me." 9. P.W. 16 in his evidence deposed as under: "At about 11.00 a.m., on the day, he went to the hostel room for changing the dress, P.W. 24 also followed him, they noticed P.W. 8 sitting at the room doing work [i.e., collecting newspaper items], in the meanwhile P.W. 8 - Akhil asked P.W. 24 [Srikanth Reddy] to go and see whether mother of the deceased is still in the room or not, accordingly, P.W. 24 went, returned and informed that they are still in the room." 10. P.W. 24 in his evidence deposed as under: "At about 11.00 a.m., on the day, he and Srikanth [P.W. 16] went to the hostel for changing their dress, noticed P.W. 8-G. Akhil who was saving the newspaper items in a note book, as usual." 11. Similarly, P.W. 9 who was a classmate of the deceased at that relevant point of time deposed as under: "At about 11.40 a.m. I was returning from the medical check up at Kothapatnam bus stand, Ongole, to our hostel. In between the bus stand and the hostel there is water tank, there A1 came to my opposite direction and wished me casually about my studies. From there I went to the mess and then to the room. The grills of the rooms are opened, but my room was found closed [bolted from inside]. I peeped into the room through the window, as the tube light and fan are switched on. I noticed Naveen Naidu found lying on the mat, touching stomach and face towards floor and with vomiting around his head. I called him repeated to wake him, but he did not respond. Immediately, I went towards the mess in-charge and informed him. He too came to the hostel room, called Naveen Naidu, but no response. Then we called the hostel warden [P.W. 7] on his arrival, we all got opened the doors, by using force from outside. The mess in-charge and warden shifted Naveen Naidu to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, got him admitted. He too came to the hostel room, called Naveen Naidu, but no response. Then we called the hostel warden [P.W. 7] on his arrival, we all got opened the doors, by using force from outside. The mess in-charge and warden shifted Naveen Naidu to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, got him admitted. Later, I came to know that Naveen Naidu died. Police inquired me." 12. P.W. 10 is the Mess In-charge, who speaks about handing over keys to P.W. 8 on the ground that the mother of the deceased visited the hostel premises; wanted to use the washroom and talk with the deceased. It would be appropriate to extract the evidence-in-chief of P.W. 10, which is as under: "On 27.11.2011 on Sunday, after completion of breakfast of all the students, I went to vegetables market and returned to the hostel by 10.30 a.m. while I was at my residence allotted to me in the compound at about 11.15 a.m. P.W. 8-Akhil came and asked me to handed over the keys stating that A1 and Naveen came. I informed him to obtain permission from the Correspondent, but he asked me again to hand over the keys stating that Naveen and mother intends to go to the toilets, accordingly, I handed over the keys. As P.W. 8 did not turn up to return the keys, I started to proceed towards the room, in the meanwhile a student by name Suresh [P.W. 9] told me that the room in which Naveen staying was bolted from inside. Immediately, I rushed to the room, noticed that the doors are closed, found the Naveen Naidu lying on the floor, touching his stomach and face towards ground, did not respond to my calls. Then I poured water on him to the window, but in vain. Then I informed the incident to Narayana Reddy [P.W. 7] and others, he came and opened the doors by using force. Then we all shifted the Naveen to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, the doctor tested the pulse and declared as brought dead. We tried to inform A1, but she did not answer the phone call. Though, the phone was ringing. Later, P.W. 7 gave report to the police." 13. Then we all shifted the Naveen to Nalluri Nursing Home, Ongole, the doctor tested the pulse and declared as brought dead. We tried to inform A1, but she did not answer the phone call. Though, the phone was ringing. Later, P.W. 7 gave report to the police." 13. From the evidence of these four witnesses, prima facie it is clear that A1 went to the hostel of the deceased and spent time with him in his room at 11.30 a.m. and within half-an-hour i.e., by 12.00 to 12.15 noon, the Warden [P.W. 7] and others broken open the door of the room of the deceased as he was found in unconscious in the room. As the door was bolted from inside, P.W. 7 and others got opened the door by force and noticed the deceased lying on the mat, touching the stomach and face with vomited substance around him. Further, there is no evidence on record to show third person entering the hostel room between the time the Petitioner left the room and the time when the classmates and the warden reached the room of the deceased. 14. As urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, 'last seen' by itself may not be a ground to convict, but there are two other circumstances that are necessary to be referred to i.e., the evidence of postmortem doctor and the extra-judicial confession before P.W. 17. 15. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was administered poison, which lead to instantaneous death. The argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the stomach and the viscera does not contain any poison substance and, as such, the case of the prosecution that death was due to poison is incorrect. But, prima facie, we feel that this aspect requires consideration at length at the time of hearing of the appeal, more so, having regard to the cause of death. It is not a case, as urged by the accused that, deceased died due to cardio-respiratory failure, but the death was due to cardio respiratory failure as a complication of septic myocarditis of heart. Referring to Modi's book of Toxicology, the Doctor [P.W. 20] in his evidence states as under: "It is true Section 2 deals with of Toxicology, relating to study of poison. Referring to Modi's book of Toxicology, the Doctor [P.W. 20] in his evidence states as under: "It is true Section 2 deals with of Toxicology, relating to study of poison. It is true cyanide is a salt or easter of hydrocyanic acid, containing the ion CN or the group-CN, sodium or potassium cyanide used as a poison or in the extraction of gold or silver Potassium cyanide is highly toxic. The salt may be easily dissolved in any liquid. Cyanide will have a peculiar or victim. I. General weakness, vomiting, confusion, bizarre behavior, excessive sleepiness, coma, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, loss of consciousness/passing out, seizures [fits], then cardiac arrest. It is true whenever a patient is referred with history of consumption or administrating of cyanide poison, the duty of doctor is to concentrate on respiratory support and cardio vascular, sometimes the patient will survive. The Modi's jurisprudence would say about the symptoms of the patient, if consumed or was administered with poison. I have noted in Ex. P19 about the common symptoms, but not specifically about the cyanide. Even after Ex. P21 the police have not furnished any questionnaire." 16. From the evidence of the doctor, prima facie, it appears that septic cardio-respiratory failure was due to taking of some poisonous substance. The petitioner was the last person who met the deceased who according to prosecution came there to do away with the deceased. 17. P.W. 17 is the Village Revenue Officer before whom the accused is said to have made the extra-judicial confession on 07.07.2012. According to him, on 07.07.2012 at 6.00 a.m., while he was in Office, the accused came to him and stated that she intends to disclose aspects regarding the death of her son. Ex. P15 is the said statement. Thereafter, he took her to Ongole I Town Police Station and produced her before the Circle Inspector of Police along with Ex. P16. In view of the above circumstances, namely, motive, last seen, evidence of postmortem doctor coupled with the extra-judicial confession, which prima facie discloses involvement of the accused, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 18. P16. In view of the above circumstances, namely, motive, last seen, evidence of postmortem doctor coupled with the extra-judicial confession, which prima facie discloses involvement of the accused, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 18. In Preet Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2020) 7 SCC 645 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 24 framed an issue as to whether "the High Court was justified in directing release of the Respondent No. 2 on bail, during the pendency of his appeal before the High Court". In paragraph No. 26 of the said judgment, the court held as under: "As the discretion under Section 389(1) is to be exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal, as held by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab and Babu Singh and others v. State of U.P." In paragraph 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another 2018 (3) ALT (Crl.) 180 (SC) : (2018) 3 SCC 22 . However, in case of post conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C." Similarly, in paragraph No. 38 and 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "38. In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail. 40. It is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could casually have suspended the execution of the sentence and granted bail to the Respondent No. 2 without recording any reasons, with the casual observation of force in the argument made on behalf of the Appellant before the High Court, that is, the Respondent No. 2 herein. In effect, at the stage of an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court found merit in the submission that the brother of the victim not having been examined, the contention of the Respondent No. 2, being the Appellant before the High Court, that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was taken as a loan was not refuted, ignoring the evidence relied upon by the Sessions Court, including the oral evidence of the victim's parents." 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no ground to grant bail and accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed. However, the Registry to comply with the order passed earlier in listing the matter for final hearing, if booklet is ready.