SMT. URMILA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Urmila, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.122 of 2020, under Sections 147, 302, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Majhgawan, District Hamirpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the occurrence in the present case has taken place on 10.06.2020 for which an application dated 15.09.2020 was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered on 16.10.2020. It is argued that although the applicant has been named in the FIR but her naming therein is false and with malafide intentions. It is further argued that in the FIR, Hari Singh, Yogesh, Urmila, the present applicant, Mammu and Pooran were named as an accused persons but police after investigation exonerated Mammu and Pooran and submitted charge sheet against remaining three accused persons. It is further argued that in the FIR, there is a recital of the fact that Anil and Vrishbhan are the two eye-witnesses of the incident but their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on 6.2.2021, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, which is after a period of more than three months from the date of lodging of the FIR. The version stated by the said two witnesses is false and incorrect and is clearly an afterthought just in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. The reason as given by them for their delayed interrogation and appearance before the police is also not convincing at all. Although the said two persons have assigned the role of catching-hold of the deceased Drigpal to co-accused Yogesh and Pooran and co-accused Hari Singh and the applicant have been assigned the role of assaulting on him and further co-accused Mammu is said to be standing there as false and incorrect. As per the postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The doctor conducting the postmortem examination has in very specific terms stated that there was no external injury present all over the body. Report from the Pathology of Department, Government Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi had been sent to Medical Officer of C.H.C concern, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit in which it is mentioned that it is not possible to do the viscera examination for the reasons mentioned in the said letter, as such the allegation of the applicant and the co-accused Hari Singh assaulting the deceased is also false and is not borne out from the postmortem report. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to get benefit under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 37 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.2.2021 .