This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant & Anr.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.64 dated

20.02.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.

#2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Surender’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that his brother namely ‘Sadhu Ram’ was found dead in the morning of 18.01.2025, and that wife of ‘Sadhu Ram’ namely ‘Kailesh Devi’ CRM-M-27364-2026 (the petitioner herein) told them that ‘Sadhu Ram’ had died because he fell from the rooftop. According to complainant, they had some suspicion about the above-mentioned claim, therefore, they informed the police and got the dead body of his brother examined post-mortem. While suspecting that his brother has been killed, an investigation was sought by the above-named complainant.

#3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#4. Reply and custody certificate have been filed by learned State counsel. The same be taken on record.

#6. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case without any reasonable basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year, one month & sixteen days, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace, which is not likely to be concluded in near future. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has developed a story that the petitioner had inflicted injury with the help of a stool on the head of the deceased and one stool has been recovered. With regard to above, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the stool so recovered by the Investigating Agency does not have bloodstains, which shatters the credibility of entire prosecution story.

#7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel during the course of CRM-M-27364-2026 investigation, it was found that it was the petitioner, who first inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with the help of stool, and thereafter, pushed the deceased from the rooftop. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that in a very clever manner an event of murder has been given the colour of accident, but the disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner during the course of investigation has spilled the beans. According to learned State counsel in view of role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime and the gravity of offence, she is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

#9. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year, one months and sixteen days; ii) that there is no eye-witness account in the present case, entire prosecution and the case is based upon circumstantial evidence; iii) that the theory set out by the prosecution that the petitioner had inflicted injury on the person of deceased with the help of stool does not find support from scientific evidence, as no blood-stains were found on the stool allegedly used by the petitioner; iv) that being female petitioner deserves considerate view; v) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vi) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the CRM-M-27364-2026 petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

#10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

#11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of CRM-M-27364-2026 India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

#12. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

#13. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. CRM-M-27364-2026 This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

#14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

#15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade her to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

09.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable