Delhi High Court: In a case concerning an application for regular bail in a murder case, a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J., granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for over 2 years and 8 months in connection with FIR No. 438 of 2023 registered under Sections 302/201, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court noted that the material relied upon by the prosecution primarily comprised CCTV footage showing the applicant in the company of the co-accused prior to the deceased being picked up, and the supplementary statement of a co-accused alleging that the applicant had exhorted the others to kill the deceased.
However, the Court observed that the applicant was not named in the earlier statement of the co-accused or in the alleged extra-judicial confession of another co-accused, and that no specific role in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the deceased’s body was prima facie attributed to her. Taking into consideration, inter alia, the absence of CDR material placing the applicant at or around the place of occurrence, her status as a woman and mother of 3 minor children, absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged incarceration, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail at that stage.
Background
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) in FIR No. 438 of 2023 registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Rohini, Delhi. The prosecution case was that on 5 October 2023, a decomposed body of an unidentified male was found in the canal at the Water Treatment Plant, Haiderpur, with his hands and legs tied and material wrapped around his neck. According to the prosecution, a dispute regarding possession of a house between the deceased and his brother “S” constituted the motive for the offence. It was alleged that “S”, the applicant, “V”, CCL “G” and “M” conspired to murder the deceased, who was thereafter taken to the Western Yamuna Canal and strangulated. The prosecution relied, inter alia, upon CCTV footage, disclosure statements and the location data of the mobile phone of co-accused “M”. The applicant was arrested on 15 December 2023; the charge-sheet had been filed, charges had been framed against 4 accused, and the trial was underway, with 6 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined. As on 5 August 2026, the applicant had undergone incarceration for 2 years, 7 months and 21 days.
The applicant had earlier filed a bail application before the High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Sessions Court; her subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 13 May 2026.
Analysis
The Court noted that the material presently relied upon by the prosecution qua the applicant primarily comprised CCTV footage from the CNG fuelling station and the supplementary statement of co-accused “S” recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) on 11 October 2023. While the CCTV footage was stated to show the applicant in the company of the co-accused, it was prior to the deceased being picked up from his village. The supplementary statement of “S” alleged that the applicant had exhorted the others to kill the deceased when he refused to vacate the disputed house. However, the applicant was not named by “S” in his earlier statement dated 10 October 2023, and her name did not find mention in the alleged extra-judicial confession of co-accused “V” before deceased’s nephew. The Court further noted that no specific role in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the body was prima facie attributed to the applicant and that there was no CDR material relied upon by the prosecution prima facie placing her at or around the alleged place of occurrence. The Court also considered the fact that the applicant was a woman, mother of three minor children, had no prior criminal antecedents and had remained in custody for over 2 years and 8 months. The proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC, which contemplates the concession of bail to a woman, was also held to be significant.
Decision
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail at that stage and directed her to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹35,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Duty Magistrate. The bail was made subject to conditions including appearance on every date of hearing, furnishing permanent and current residential addresses, keeping her mobile number operational, refraining from inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts of the case or from tampering with evidence, not leaving the country without prior permission of the trial court, and not committing any offence during the period of bail. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding the bail application and would neither influence the trial proceedings nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Also Read: Orissa HC denies pre-arrest bail to media editor in bribery allegations case | SCC Times
[Sunita v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6695, decided on 1-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Lewish Edward, Vignesh P., Ayush Khanna & Karan Tomar, Vignesh P., Sameer Fayis, Advocates
For the Respondent: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Insp. Ajay Katewa, PS KNK Marg, Insp. O.P. Vishnoi, Main IO
