It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that in fact the first informant is not legally wedded wife of deceased, rather the deceased was married with one Manju Devi and he has three children from that marriage but later on the first informant, who was working as a maid, developed relationship with deceased and started living with him as wife. It has been submitted that in fact deceased has been got murdered by the first informant with intention to grab the property of deceased. Learned counsel has referred an application, which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the bail application, which was moved by mother of deceased against first informant of this case and three others alleging that her son (deceased) has been got murdered by Luxmi Devi, who is first informant of this case, to grab the property of deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of alleged eye-witnesses Shishu Pal Singh and Islamuddin @ Gappu have been recorded after 45 days of incident and there is no satisfactory explanation for delay in recording their statements. No independent witness has been examined from or around the alleged spot of incident. It has been submitted that applicant is nephew of deceased and he has no motive to kill the deceased. It was further submitted that as per the statements of alleged eyewitnesses Shishu Pal Singh and Islamuddin @ Gappu, coaccused persons, namely, Rajesh and Uma Devi have caught the hands of deceased, co-accused Shiv Shanker has caught feet of deceased and at the exhortation of co-accused Rajesh and Uma Devi, applicant and co-accused Shivam have assaulted the deceased with bricks at his head. It was submitted that statements of these witnesses have been recorded after 45 days of incident and thus, their presence at the spot is thoroughly doubtful and there are no reasons that if they have seen the incident, why they kept mum for 45 days. Applicant is the son of the sister of deceased and that he was not going to get any property of deceased and thus, he has no motive to indulge in any incident or to attack the deceased. It was further submitted that co-accused Rajesh and Shiv Shankar have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the copies of which are available on record. It has further been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2020, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in first information report. It has been submitted that deceased has been murdered by applicant and co-accused persons as he used to demand his share in the shop. It was also submitted that as per postmortem report, deceased has sustained several injuries. It was stated that as per eyewitness, applicant and co-accused Shivam have assaulted deceased with bricks. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
