MISHRI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G. A. for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 534 of 2012, under Sections-302 and 201 IPC is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. which was lodged on 7.10.2012 by one Surendra Pal Singh Yadav, S. I. upon discovery of the dead body of an un-known female in the field of one Malkhan Singh. The name of the applicant as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time in the statement of Tarawati, the sister of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. in which she stated that the deceased who was living with her had left her house on 6.10.2012 at about 6.00 P. M. for meeting the applicant and thereafter she did not return back. In her statement she further stated that she suspected that her sister had been done to death by the applicant. The implication of the applicant in the present case is further based upon the recovery of a dupatta at the pointing out of he applicant on 12.12.2012, which is alleged to be that of the deceased from an open piece of land accessible to the public at large and which is yet to be proved to be of the apparel of the deceased by any cogent evidence. He also submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Circumstantial evidence on record also does not constitute the complete chain of events to link the applicant with the commission of crime.