SHAMSHAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the accused applicant Shamshad who is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 222 of 2008 under section 302. I.P.C., Police Station Wazirganj, Dis­trict Badaun. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief, as is re­vealing from the record is that Halim Shah on 29.3.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. lodged F.I.R. at police station Kadar Chowk, Dis­trict Badaun against accused applicant Shamshod who happens to be his brother to the effect that on 27.3.2008 accused ap­plicant had taken with him his daughter Kumari Jaibul Nisha aged about 14 years pretending that delivery of his wife is due and there is none to look after her. That thereafter on 29.3.2008 at about 12' O clock noon, he brought his daughter Jaibul Nisha at his house in a Maruti car in dead condi­tion. That blood and foams were coming out from the mouth of the dead body of the deceased and from the condition of the dead body, it appeared that somebody has tried to commit rape with Jaibul Nisha and she has taken some poisonous substance. On the basis of the said report, a case under section 306 I.P.C. was registered at the po­lice station but during the investigation, it was found that the death of the Jaibul Nisha had occurred due to strangulation and the case was converted for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C.

(3.) BAIL has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. by contending that the de­ceased was taken by accused applicant and was brought dead and the burden lies on him under section 106 of the Indian Evi­dence Act to prove the death of Jaibul Nisha was not the result of murder. It was further contended that after leaving dead body of the deceased at the house of the complainant, accused fled away which shows his complexity in the murder and that the result of death was not abortion but strangulation and as such the applicant cannot take advantage of the.statement of Smt. Bano. That there are sufficient mate­rials against the applicant and as such he does not deserve bail.