Neelam v. State of Haryana

Present:- Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate and Ms. Sadhna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.228 dated 10.06.2024 registered under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC at Police Special Rajendra Park, District Gurugram. Her previous petition bearing CRM-M-56487-2025, had been dismissed for non prosecution on

05.03.2026. CRM-M No.23868 of 2026 -2-

#2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Bajinder alleging therein that he used to clean garbage of GWS canal in the area of Expressway Gurugram. In the morning of 10.06.2024, while cleaning the canal with the help of a net, he found a sack lying in the corner. The same was containing dead body of some unknown person.

#3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. On 10.06.2024, the dead body was identified to be that of one Pushpendra. As per the postmortem examination report, the death had occurred due to Asphyxia following ante mortem manual neck compression which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On 11.06.2024, on the basis of secret information, the present petitioner and Ramnivas were apprehended. They were interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting their involvement in the murder of the victim. They demarcated the place of occurrence. The petitioner got recovered one iron rod along with one chunni and SIM belonging to the deceased whereas the accused Ramnivas got recovered one mobile phone and one brief as well as auto rickshaw used in the commission of the crime. The call detail records of mobile phone of the deceased, the petitioner and the co-accused were obtained. It transpired that the petitioner was having illicit relations with the deceased. The co-accused Ramniwas, who is her husband had come to know about this fact and had CRM-M No.23868 of 2026 -3- extended beatings to her. He had then asked her to facilitate the murder of the deceased with him. They had hatched a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof, the deceased was called at the house of the petitioner and the co-accused and was then strangulated with the help of a chunni. After causing his death, the petitioner and co-accused had put the corpse of the deceased in a sack and had thrown the same in the canal. Investigation now stands concluded.

#4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She was not named in the FIR. The disclosure statement of the co-accused cannot be considered to be legally admissible against her. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the murder of the victim. The prosecution has not been able to establish any complete chain of circumstances linking her with the subject offences. PW-2 Amit and PW-3 Raja have not supported the prosecution version. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 11 out of 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Each day spent by her in custody has furnished a new ground to her to seek bail. Her prolonged incarceration militates against her fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India for release on bail. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail.

#5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations CRM-M No.23868 of 2026 -4- against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The recovery of incriminating articles had been effected at her instance. The prosecution has also collected evidence in the form of call detail records to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The trial is going on at a proper pace. Moreso, this petition being succesive is not maintainable. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

#7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have caused the death of the victim by strangulating him with the help of a dupatta after calling him at her house and is then alleged to have shifted the corpse in a sack and had thrown the same in the canal. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences against her. It cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial as substantial number of witnesses have been examined. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail, conviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of CRM-M No.23868 of 2026 -5- prosecution should also be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. So far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. In the instant case, however, the petitioner has failed to make out any case of substantive change in the circumstances so as to entitle her to seek concession of bail. As such, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

#8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

15.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No