High Court

3. First bail application No. 2483/2022 was dismissed as not pressed by means of order dated 12.07.2023. After rejection of the first bail application, as many as four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Copies of their statements have been brought on record.

4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on

04.06.2021 stating that while wife of the informant's cousin had gone to attend the call of nature at about 08:30 p.m. on

03.06.2021, some unknown persons killed her by slitting her neck. Upon hearing the hue and cry, several villagers reached there and saw the dead body. Husband and all the other male members of the deceased's family worked at Mumbai. One of the brothers lives at home but he does not keep any concern with anyone. The informant had given information of the incident to husband of the deceased who was on the way from Mumbai to his home.

5. The post mortem examination report mentions numerous incised and lacerated wounds on the dead body and the cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

6. The informant reiterated the FIR version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. The police took into possession mobile phone of the deceased and the last conversation was made to a number which was traced to one Mulayam Yadav on the basis of information extracted from True Caller App. Mulayam stated that he had purchased a new android phone and he had given his old keypad phone to the applicant Raj Kumar Yadav, who works as a guard in the police station. The investigating officer recorded that there was a rumor amongst the villagers that the deceased had a love affair with the applicant.

8. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of daughter of the deceased who stated that the applicant used to visit her home and talk to her mother (the deceased). Her mother's jewelry had gone missing about 8 to 10 days agao and she suspected that the applicant had committed theft of the jewelry. The deceased had asked the applicant several times to return the jewelry. On 03.06.2021 when she had gone with her mother to attend the call of nature, the applicant killed her and threatened the deceased's daughter not to disclose about the incident to any person.

9. The trial is going on and as many as four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Daughter of the deceased, who is said to have accompanied her at the time of the incident, reiterated her earlier version in her examination-in- chief. However, during her cross- examination, she stated that the applicant did not use to visit her home and he only used to meet them at her tubewell. She further stated that although the police had visited her place after the incident, no inquiry was made from her. She also stated that she did not have any interaction with the police at any point of time.

10. The learned AGA-I has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that four prosecution witnesses have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. The offence alleged is heinous in nature and the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the victim's daughter is said to have accompanied him and at the time of the incident and to have witnessed the incident, she did not disclose this fact promptly and there is no mention of this fact either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; she disclosed this fact for the first time on 05.06.2021 when the Investigating Officer had already recorded in the case diary on 04.06.2021 that there was a rumor that the applicant was having a relationship with the deceased, the mobile of the deceased had been recovered, it had been traced that she had the last conversation with a mobile phone in the name of Mulayam Singh and Mulayam Singh had stated that he had already given the mobile phone to the applicant; although in the examination-in-chief, the informant's daughter has stated that the applicant used to visit her place frequently, in her cross examination she stated that the applicant did not visit her place and he used to meet them at a tubewell only; the victim's daughter has disowned her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by stating that she did not ever have any interaction with the police and that the witnesses of fact have already been examined and in case he is release on bail, the applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kariya be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Pradeep/-

3. First bail application No. 2483/2022 was dismissed as not pressed by means of order dated 12.07.2023. After rejection of the first bail application, as many as four prosecution witnesses have been examined. Copies of their statements have been brought on record.

4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on

04.06.2021 stating that while wife of the informant's cousin had gone to attend the call of nature at about 08:30 p.m. on

03.06.2021, some unknown persons killed her by slitting her neck. Upon hearing the hue and cry, several villagers reached there and saw the dead body. Husband and all the other male members of the deceased's family worked at Mumbai. One of the brothers lives at home but he does not keep any concern with anyone. The informant had given information of the incident to husband of the deceased who was on the way from Mumbai to his home.

5. The post mortem examination report mentions numerous incised and lacerated wounds on the dead body and the cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

6. The informant reiterated the FIR version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. The police took into possession mobile phone of the deceased and the last conversation was made to a number which was traced to one Mulayam Yadav on the basis of information extracted from True Caller App. Mulayam stated that he had purchased a new android phone and he had given his old keypad phone to the applicant Raj Kumar Yadav, who works as a guard in the police station. The investigating officer recorded that there was a rumor amongst the villagers that the deceased had a love affair with the applicant.

8. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of daughter of the deceased who stated that the applicant used to visit her home and talk to her mother (the deceased). Her mother's jewelry had gone missing about 8 to 10 days agao and she suspected that the applicant had committed theft of the jewelry. The deceased had asked the applicant several times to return the jewelry. On 03.06.2021 when she had gone with her mother to attend the call of nature, the applicant killed her and threatened the deceased's daughter not to disclose about the incident to any person.

9. The trial is going on and as many as four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Daughter of the deceased, who is said to have accompanied her at the time of the incident, reiterated her earlier version in her examination-in- chief. However, during her cross- examination, she stated that the applicant did not use to visit her home and he only used to meet them at her tubewell. She further stated that although the police had visited her place after the incident, no inquiry was made from her. She also stated that she did not have any interaction with the police at any point of time.

10. The learned AGA-I has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that four prosecution witnesses have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. The offence alleged is heinous in nature and the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the victim's daughter is said to have accompanied him and at the time of the incident and to have witnessed the incident, she did not disclose this fact promptly and there is no mention of this fact either in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; she disclosed this fact for the first time on 05.06.2021 when the Investigating Officer had already recorded in the case diary on 04.06.2021 that there was a rumor that the applicant was having a relationship with the deceased, the mobile of the deceased had been recovered, it had been traced that she had the last conversation with a mobile phone in the name of Mulayam Singh and Mulayam Singh had stated that he had already given the mobile phone to the applicant; although in the examination-in-chief, the informant's daughter has stated that the applicant used to visit her place frequently, in her cross examination she stated that the applicant did not visit her place and he used to meet them at a tubewell only; the victim's daughter has disowned her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by stating that she did not ever have any interaction with the police and that the witnesses of fact have already been examined and in case he is release on bail, the applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

13. Let the applicant-Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kariya be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Pradeep/-