PRATIBHA RANI, J.

CRL.M.A.15817/2017

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN.1906/2017

1. By way of this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.1669/2015, registered under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, at PS Bindapur.

2. Notice. Learned APP as above accepts notice on behalf of the State and submits the status report.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Nirvashi Singh @ Ceathi is a woman who was arrested on 13th December, 2015 and is in judicial custody since 14th December, 2015.

4. While referring to the contents of the FIR which was recorded on the statement of Meetu Nanda who accompanied the deceased Pooja to the house of the petitioner Ceathi to have drugs, it has been contended that even the complainant has expired. Now there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner to connect her with the alleged murder of Pooja.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even as per FIR, the petitioner was not present when, as alleged in the FIR, the husband of the petitioner Uche Chukwu @ Kalu and his two associates Annu & Kannu tried to force themselves on the complainant Meetu Nanda and the deceased Pooja. The complainant Meetu Nanda and the deceased Pooja were given injections forcibly which had the effect of sedating them. The deceased Pooja was given another injection as the first injection did not have the desired effect on her. In the morning, she was found dead at the house of the petitioner Ceathi.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the petitioner had given injection nor in the CCTV footage she has been seen to be present and involved in disposing of the body of the deceased Pooja. The petitioner has a minor child to take care and she being foreign national is not even familiar with the local language, hence she may be enlarged on bail.

7. Somewhat identical submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and have been rejected for the reasons given here under:

“During the course or arguments, counsel for the accused submits that applicants/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and she is in J/C since 13.12.2015. It is further submitted that there is no role of the present accused has been attributed by the Prosecution in the commission of crime, even there is no evidence on record to suggest that present applicant/accused was aiding or abetting the said the crime along with accused persons.

It is further submitted that there is only one eye-witness Meetu Nanda of the alleged incident who has also died, therefore, there is no material on record to connect the present applicant/accused with the crime. It is further submitted that even no blood sample been taken from the present applicant/accused, which is awaited from the FSL. It is further submitted that now there is only one public witness namely Baljinder @ Veeru left to be examined who is in judicial custody and if the present applicant/accused is released on bail, then there is no threat to the said witness also. It is further submitted that since there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant/accused was involved in the commission of crime, therefore, the accused may be released on bail.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by counsel for the accused and Learned Addl.P.P. for the State and perused the record carefully.

On perusal of the case file, I find that prosecution has alleged that on 12.10.2015 at about 7 a.m. at house no. RZ-33, Fourth floor, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intentions committed murder of one Pooja.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations and gravity of offences, and the fact that public witness, including the other witnesses, are yet to be examined, I am not inc