The seriousness of the allegations and the role of the accused as the prime accused can be considered in determining bail eligibility.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.250 dated 30.08.2019 registered under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC (Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station Kheri Pul, Faridabad.

2. The FIR was registered on the statement of Ajab Singh to the effect that his daughter had gone to purchase some goods from a nearby grocery shop and thereafter, she did not return back home. The FIR was registered against unknown persons by the complainant, who might have taken away daughter of the complainant namely Nikita with some ulterior motive of marrying her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of extra-judicial confession before Kuldeep Singh (PW-3), which is a weak type of evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the police has recorded two confessional statements of the petitioner, which are inadmissible in law. During course of investigation, the petitioner and Waseem were arrested on 10.09.2019 and dead body of Nikita was allegedly shown to be recovered by the petitioner and co-accused Waseem. In view of disclosure statements made by the petitioner, the recovery of dead body was effected and the recovery memo did not bear signature of the petitioner. The alleged identification of the place of recovery, would remain debatable as per Evidence Act as the fact already in the knowledge of the police, would not give rise to any such admissible piece of evidence qua the alleged place of recovery. Co-accused Amar Singh was arrested on 12.09.2019. When the FIR was a blind FIR, therefore, the prosecution ought to have conducted test identification parade before the Illaqa Magistrate at the time of their production before the Court.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and no motive can be attributed. It is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2019. The material witnesses have been examined and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The trial of the case would take long time to conclude as out of total 38 prosecution witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions from Investigating Officer submitted that as per material available on record, Nikita was murdered by the petitioner and her dead body was placed in a pit near Bank of Yamuna in order to destroy the evidence. The dead body of Nikita was recovered from Bank of Yamuna near Kaptan Farm House on the demarcation of the petitioner. Nikita was murdered by the petitioner on the asking of the co-accused. As per disclosure statements of the petitioner dated 10.09.2019 and 11.09.2019, he was having some affair with the deceased and Nikita started pressurizing the petitioner for marriage. On 29.08.2019, the petitioner contacted co-accused Amar Singh who also called Waseem. Thereafter, all the three made a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, went to Kaptan Farm House for finding an appropriate place. On 30.08.2019, the petitioner called Nikita and picked her in a car and then killed her by strangulation. Thereafter, the petitioner called Amar Singh on phone. Amar Singh and Waseem came to master road near Tikawali. Thereafter, all the three sat in the car for disposing the dead body. They went to Yamuna Bank and dug a pit and thereafter, dead body was buried in that pit. In the disclosure statement dated 11.09.2019, the petitioner disclosed that on reaching Tikawali, dead body of Nikita was lying on the rear seat of the car. Amar Singh and Waseem had come at that time in a car, which was parked by Amar Singh at Tikawali Mor and thereafter, Amar Singh sat on the front seat of the car of the petitioner and Waseem sat near dead body on the rear seat. Thereafter, all the three reached Bhupani Mor and on the asking of the petitioner, Amar Singh purc