KAJAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Amit Daga the learned counsel for the complainant

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Kajal with the prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime no. 253 of 2009 under sections 364, 394, 411, 302, 201 and120-B IPC. P.S. Nai Mandi district Muzaffaragar.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, the case is based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances are of week in nature, which are not completing the chain of circumstances to show that the applicant has participated in the commission of the alleged offence. According to the prosecution version also,the applicant was having illicit relation with the deceased, address of the applicant was also not known, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the first informant, who stated that any how she could search the applicant, on contact she narrated the whole prosecution story, there was no reason for narrating the story by the applicant to the first informant, if the applicant was having love affairs with the deceased, who was killed, the disclosure would not serve any purpose, the first informant changed the earlier version stating that only she had stated that she had received message on mobile in which Rs. 20,00,000/- was demanded as ransom for which it is stated that the statement made by him that some message was given by the miscreants to mislead him. In fact, it was not a message for non fulfillment of demand of ransom. In fact, he was murdered on account of having illicit relation with the applicant. The alleged recovery of Indica Car No. H.R.95 B.M.5724, which was belonging to the deceased from the bypass road of Muzaffarnagar from the possession of the applicant, co-accused Manjeet Khokhar and Sanny Kashyap on 13.2.2009 was planted, it was not recovered as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, true fact is that the applicant was picked up along with her sister Neelam on 5.2.2009 from the house of her mother, then Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of the applicant moved an application on 13.2.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. in respect of the said incident on which the learned C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar called for the report and fixed a date 16.2.2009, the recovery of the vehicle was not made as alleged, the recovered car was standing at the Taxi Stand since 5.2.2009 it was taken into custody by the police on 11.9.2009 at 12.00 a.m. its entry has been made in the relevant register of the Taxi Stand, the vehicle was taken by the police from Bittu, who was in the night duty and the recovery of the dead body has also been planted, the applicant is a respectable lady, she was having no relationship with the deceased, husband of the deceased is a class I officer, working in the department of defense Dehradun, the applicant and other co-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.