Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.114 of 2024 (In Bail Application No.855 of 2024), under Sections 201 and 302 IPC, Police Station
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She has sought her release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The deceased was in relationship with the neighbour. According to the FIR, on 23/24.02.2024, at any time, in the midnight, she was killed by her
family members. The family members were in the process of burying the deceased, but in the meanwhile, the police was informed. The applicant and
other family members did reveal that due to stomach pain, the deceased had died. At the time of inquest, it was told that the deceased had committed
suicide by hanging. But as per post-mortem report, the death took place at the relevant time at 6:00 P.M. due to throttling.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the witnesses of fact have already been examined and none has supported the prosecution
case.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that how the deceased died, this fact within the special knowledge of the applicant who happens to be the
mother of the deceased in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would submit that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of
throttling.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be
examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.
7. The applicant and her family members were in the process of burying the deceased, who happens to be the daughter of the applicant. It is the
prosecution case that the deceased had relations with her neighbour. She was killed in the midnight. The post-mortem report reveals that it was a
death due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. A young girl was killed in her own house by her family members.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be
rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
