REENA YADAV Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No. 231/2009 under Section 302 /120B /34 IPC read with Section 25 /54 /59 of the Arms Act registered by PS : Neb Sarai, Delhi, in respect of which the Trial is pending before the Competent Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the co-accused, Meena, sister of the present petitioner, has already been released on bail and the role of the present petitioner is allegedly similar to that of the role of her sister, Meena and, therefore, on the ground of parity, she deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. It has been further contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the only evidence which has been brought on record by the Prosecution is that a knife was recovered from her which is alleged to have been used as a weapon of offence but this fact has not been fortified by the CFSL, inasmuch as it was not found to contain any blood stains. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that in this regard, a revolver is alleged to have been recovered from Meena, the sister of the present petitioner and, therefore, there is a parity between the two cases.

(3.) Thirdly, it has been contended by the learned counsel that so far as Parth, the son of the present petitioner is concerned, he had admittedly not seen the petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence, therefore, it could not be said that she was responsible for the murder of the deceased who happened to be her husband.