The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of murder after more than three years in custody, affirming that prolonged incarceration without trial, combined with gender-based welfare considerations, can outweigh the seriousness of allegations under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The judgment reinforces the constitutional imperative of a speedy trial and the judiciary’s duty to protect vulnerable accused persons.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rani Devi, is accused in FIR No. 31 dated 20.02.2023 registered at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana, under Sections 103 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution alleges that she conspired with her paramour, Vijendra Thekedar, to murder her husband, Shiv Kumar Shah, by stabbing him multiple times with a sharp-edged weapon on 19.02.2023. The body was discovered on 20.02.2023 in an empty plot in Phase-2, Panchkula. The complainant, Rajesh Gupta, is the victim’s nephew, who reported the incident after receiving a call from his maternal grandfather.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a woman aged approximately 38 years as per the memo of parties.
- She has no prior criminal record and is described as having clean antecedents.
- The alleged motive is an illicit relationship between the petitioner and Vijendra, which reportedly caused marital discord.
- The victim had been employed at a flour mill and later worked as a daily wage labourer.
- The prosecution’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the complainant’s letter; there are no eyewitnesses to the murder.
- The petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2023 and has remained in custody since.
- As of 14.03.2026, she has been incarcerated for 3 years and 23 days.
- The charge sheet was filed on 20.04.2023.
- Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined; 3 have been dropped.
- The trial is expected to take a prolonged period.
Procedural History
- 20.02.2023: FIR registered at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula.
- 22.02.2023: Petitioner arrested.
- 20.04.2023: Charge sheet filed.
- 25.03.2025: First bail petition (CRM-M-64763-2024) dismissed.
- 27.11.2025: Second bail petition (CRM-M-31336-2025) withdrawn.
- 14.03.2026: Custody certificate filed by the State confirming 3 years and 23 days of incarceration.
- 16.03.2026: Third bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner has been in custody for over three years without trial completion.
- The prosecution case lacks eyewitnesses and relies on circumstantial evidence.
- The petitioner is a woman with no prior criminal history.
- The delay in trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The petition is a legitimate third attempt, not an abuse of process.
For the Respondent
- The allegations involve a heinous crime under Section 103 of the BNSS.
- The gravity of the offence disqualifies the petitioner from bail.
- The State submitted a custody certificate to establish the duration of incarceration.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks regular bail on the grounds of prolonged custody, gender sensitivity, and the absence of any risk of flight or evidence tampering.
The Legal Issue
Can a woman accused of a serious offence like murder be granted regular bail after over three years in custody, where the trial is delayed and no eyewitnesses exist, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the filing of two prior unsuccessful bail applications?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) to argue that the State cannot oppose bail merely because the crime is serious if the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is unfulfilled. It was submitted that the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to special consideration under the proviso to Section 480(2) of the BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 437 CrPC. Reference was made to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) to emphasize judicial sensitivity towards women accused, particularly those with children or in vulnerable circumstances. The petitioner’s clean antecedents and the absence of any attempt to abscond were highlighted.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the nature of the offence - murder by conspiracy - demands strict denial of bail. It argued that the gravity of the crime, even without eyewitnesses, justifies continued custody. The State did not dispute the duration of custody but maintained that the seriousness of the allegations overrides any procedural delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework governing successive bail petitions and the constitutional obligations under Article 21. It noted that while the allegations are grave, the prosecution has not completed its evidence despite over three years of investigation and trial proceedings. The Court emphasized that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime, as held in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh.
"If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious."
The Court further relied on its own precedent in Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2024), which interpreted the proviso to Section 437 CrPC as a welfare provision requiring judicial sensitivity toward women accused. The Court observed that over 1,000 children live in prisons with their mothers, and exposing women to prolonged incarceration without trial perpetuates intergenerational harm.
The Court also addressed the issue of successive bail petitions, citing Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana (2023), and held that a third bail petition is maintainable if substantial change in circumstances is shown. Here, the passage of over three years in custody, the minimal progress in trial, and the absence of any misconduct by the petitioner constituted such a change.
The Court explicitly declined to evaluate the merits of the prosecution’s case at this stage, noting that doing so would prejudice the trial. It found no evidence suggesting the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted regular bail on the condition that she furnishes bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, absent herself from trial, commit any offence, or change her mobile number without permission. She must deposit her passport and provide her cellphone number to the Investigating Officer. The State may apply for cancellation of bail upon breach of conditions. The Court directed compliance with these conditions within 7 days of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Extended Custody Overrides Gravity of Allegations
- Practitioners may now argue that prolonged pre-trial detention (beyond 2 - 3 years) in cases with minimal progress in evidence recording constitutes a violation of Article 21, independent of the offence’s severity.
- Courts must prioritize the right to speedy trial over the nature of the charge when bail is sought after extended incarceration.
Gender Sensitivity Is Not Discretionary
- The proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS mandates judicial sensitivity toward female accused; this is not a discretionary consideration but a statutory imperative.
- Courts must actively consider the impact of incarceration on women, especially those with dependents, and avoid mechanical denial of bail.
Successive Bail Petitions Are Not Frivolous
- A third or subsequent bail petition is maintainable if there is a substantial change in circumstances - such as prolonged custody, lack of trial progress, or new evidence of non-flight risk.
- Courts must record clear, cogent reasons for granting successive bail, but may not reject them solely on the ground of repetition.
No Need to Prove Innocence for Bail
- The Court clarified that the accused need not prove innocence to obtain bail; the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate a real risk of flight or evidence tampering.
- Absence of eyewitnesses and reliance on circumstantial evidence further supports the grant of bail in cases of extended delay.
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- File bail applications citing Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh and Satender Kumar Antil when custody exceeds 2 years.
- Submit custody certificates and trial progress reports to demonstrate delay.
- Highlight gender, age, and clean antecedents as statutory factors under Section 480(2) BNSS.
- Cite Rafiq Khan to counter objections based on successive petitions.
