Rajasthan High Court: In an bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the accused, a young mother of 5-year-old charged with double murder, the Single-Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., granted her bail holding that her prolonged pre-trial detention, the arguable nature of the circumstantial evidence against her, and her vulnerable status as a young woman and mother of a 5-year old, rendered continued incarceration unjust and constitutionally impermissible. The Court emphasized that the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, not to serve as pre-trial punishment.
Background
On 27-10-2023, the police found the bodies of 2 female victims at a residence. A written report stated that the victims had allegedly been murdered. The police noted visible injuries on both deceased, including head trauma and bleeding. Based on this report, an FIR was registered at Police Station under Sections 302 and 323 Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The accused was arrested on 02-11-2023, during the subsequent investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the accused was charged under Sections 449, 302, 394, 380, 436, and 201 of the IPC. The case is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence, with only a limited number of witnesses having been examined. Her previous two bail applications were dismissed by the Court on 19-12-2024. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present petition under Section 439 of the CrPC.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the accused had been in judicial custody for a prolonged period nearing two years. This detention was an onerous burden on her liberty and familial responsibilities, particularly as she is a young woman and the mother of a five-year-old child. The court highlighted the stark and distressing absence of any immediate familial support system, with her child currently residing with her maternal grandmother having been geographically separated from the accused. Further, the accused’s family lacks any effective support system to ensure the child’s welfare during the accused’s continued period of incarceration as the maternal grandmother is an elderly woman, burdened with the care of her husband – a cancer patient, and is compelled to undertake taxing journeys for husband’s medical care. The court noted that the petitioner has a pristine criminal record.
The criminal trial against the accused was far from resolution, with only a limited segment of the prosecution’s witnesses been examined, leaving a substantial corpus of evidentiary material yet to be adduced. The languid and protracted pace of the trial, coupled with the considerable volume of testimony and documentation still to be recorded, starkly underscored the improbability of an imminent or expeditious conclusion. Without any definitive determination of guilt such an extended pre-trial incarceration precipitated serious constitutional and procedural concerns. The Court observed that this situation gravely infringes accused’s fundamental rights, including the right to a fair and speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 which guarantees protection of personal liberty and due process.
The Court observed that the factum probandum which must be proved beyond reasonable doubts i.e., the accused’s direct involvement in the case is missing and the prosecution’s case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitnesses. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, cogent, and convincing. Each individual circumstance relied upon must be independently established by credible evidence. More importantly, when all such circumstances are taken together, they must form an unbroken chain which leads to the singular conclusion that it was the accused and no one else who committed the offence. Even the slightest possibility of any other hypothesis should move the benefit of doubt towards the accused.
The Court noted that in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Supreme Court laid down 5 golden principles know as ‘panchsheel’ for appreciation of circumstantial evidence and applying these principles to the present case, it is apparent that the evidentiary material on record, even if taken at face value, falls short of meeting the stringent requirements laid down for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances is incomplete and disjoined leaving open various plausible hypotheses other than accused’s guilt.
The Court further noted that the statutory framework mandates that bail should not be granted where the accused faces charges punishable by death or life imprisonment, and where there exist reasonable grounds to believe in their guilt. Nevertheless, the statute prudently incorporates a critical proviso that confers a beneficial and compassionate discretion favouring vulnerable categories of persons, including women, children, and infirm individuals, to shield such vulnerable classes from the onerous and potentially prejudicial rigours of pre-trial detention.
The Court noted that the taking into account the accused’s youth, lack of socio-political influence or power, and the absence of any demonstrated intent or action to obstruct the administration of justice, it would be manifestly unjust and disproportionately punitive to continue her incarceration based solely on the gravity of the charges levelled against her.
Having regard to the totality of circumstances, particularly the accused’s protracted pre-trial detention, the absence of cogent grounds for denial, and her vulnerable status as a woman, the Court found continued incarceration to be unjust. The separation from her five-year-old son deprives the child of maternal care and the mother of her fundamental role, causing severe distress and undermining the child’s welfare. As the purpose of bail is to ensure presence at trial and not to act as pre-trial punishment, the denial of bail is legally untenable and constitutionally impermissible.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court allowed the bail application, and the accused was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
[Mariya v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4520/2025, decided on 04-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Karan Singh Rathore and Shreyansh Ramdev, Advocates
For the Respondents: S.S. Rahore, Dy. G.A
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
