JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Sunil alias Suman Pasi with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 235 of 2003 under Sections 304, 324 I.P.C. P.S. Husainpur district Fatehpur,
2. The prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Prakash Pasi on 6.12.2003 at about 7.20 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 5.12.2003 at about 11.00 p.m. It is alleged that the applicant has committed murder of his wife Smt. Raji alias Rajia and caused injury on the person of Rinku. It is alleged that the first husband of the deceased was died thereafter she remarried with the applicant she was living in the company of the applicant for the last two years by constructing a hut near the field of one Sarvesh. The applicant was a gambler. On 5.12.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. at the time the deceased and her children were present there, there had been some quarrel between the applicant and the deceased. Thereafter the applicant caused injuries on her person by using brick and stone blows. Her son Rinku came of his rescue, injury was caused on his person by the co-accused Indrajeet by using sickle blows. The mother of the first informant went to the house of the deceased where she found that the deceased was laying in dead condition and Rinku was lying in injured condition. He was taken to the Primary Health Center Husainganj where he was admitted.
3. Hear Sri Raj nath Bhakta learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel fort the applicant:
I. That the alleged occurrence was not pre-intended. It has taken place in a sudden quarrel in which the applicant caused injures by using brick and stone blows.
II. That the statement of injured Rinku has been recorded in the trial court as P.W. II He also stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel and the applicant is in jail since 18.12.2003 and he is aged about 65 years. Therefore, he may be released on bail.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting:
1. That the applicant is the husband of the deceased and Rinku son of the deceased is injured witnesses. He has supported the prosecution story and the statement has been recorded in trial court as P.W. II.
2. That on all the witnesses of fact have been examined in the trial court. The trial is at the verge of conclusion. Therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, Therefore, his prayer for bail is refused.
7. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.