SHYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No. 112 of 2012. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased was having illicit connection with the petitioner. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation are parrot like statements. Although, they have stated that deceased was having illicit connection with the present petitioner, looking to the materials on record it shows that even the husband of the deceased also had come to her parental village and he was also present at the time of the alleged incident, which shows that the case of the prosecution is inconsistent. He has also submitted that there is two days delay in lodging the complaint. Though the alleged incident has taken place on 27-8-2012, the complaint was registered on 29-8-2012. He has also submitted that initially the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and subsequently, she was discharged from the hospital and it is because of carelessness of the family members to take care of her health, her death has taken place. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Since 14 months, petitioner is in custody. He has submitted that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that before death the injured has given her statement in the hospital, which clearly shows the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. In the statement of C.Ws. 2 to 6, particularly C.W. 6, it is stated that after hearing the screaming noise when they went to the house of the petitioner, petitioner who was in the house ran away from the house. Hence, it is submitted that prosecution has placed prima facie material about the commission of the alleged offence by the present petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.