Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused In Double Murder Case Registered After 2 Years Of Death

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted regular bail to a 39-year-old woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband and alleged paramour's wife , noting the inordinate delay in registration of the FIR, absence of postmortem examination, and lack of direct recovery linking her to the alleged crime.Justice Sanjay Vashisth noted, "The FIR in the present case was got registered after a delay of period of more than 02 years i.e. on 20.09.2024, following the death of Pardeep Kumar (petitioner's husband). Whether an illicit relationship existed between the petitioner and Anil Kumar (alleged paramour) is an issue that should not be and even can not be decided at this stage, in the proceeding of the instant bail petition."The Court allowed the petition filed by Seema Saini under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 439 CrPC), seeking bail in FIR registered at Haryana's Yamuna Nagar under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120-B IPC.Allegations: Murder Conspiracy With Co-AccusedThe case concerns the death of Pardeep Kumar, husband of the petitioner, who died at home on 06.08.2022. Initially, no suspicion was raised and no postmortem examination was conducted.Nearly one year and ten months later, on 26.06.2024, Rajesh Kumar—brother of the deceased—filed a complaint alleging that Seema Saini had been frequently speaking on phone with co-accused Anil Kumar even after her husband's death. On that basis, suspicion was raised that the two had conspired to poison Pardeep Kumar to continue an alleged illicit relationship.The FIR was eventually registered on 20.09.2024—almost two years after the death.The prosecution relied heavily on call detail records, pointing to 30 calls exchanged between 01.07.2022 and 06.08.2022 between the petitioner and co-accused Anil Kumar. It was also alleged that co-accused Anil Kumar's wife, Sunita, died on 28.11.2023 under similar circumstances, without any medico-legal examination or postmortem.While tablets of salt “Diphenoxylate” were allegedly recovered from co-accused Anil Kumar, no such recovery was made from the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner Samay Sandhawalia argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two years and no postmortem or inquest report was conducted at the time of death. There was no medical evidence establishing cause of death and no weapon or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner.The case was built primarily on call records and disclosure statements and the complainant had already been examined during trial. The petitioner had been in custody for over one year and three months and was not involved in any other criminal case, he added.It was further submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint alleging that the complainant had withdrawn ₹21 lakhs from her account using a pre-signed cheque, suggesting a property-related dispute.Relying on the proviso to Section 480 of BNSS, counsel contended that special consideration ought to be extended to women accused while considering bail.The State, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposed the plea, contending that there was substantial material in the form of telephonic conversations between the petitioner and co-accused. Both deceased individuals—Pardeep Kumar and Sunita (wife of co-accused)—had allegedly died due to poison administered by the accused.After hearing the submissions, the Court said that the circumstances pointed towards a conspiracy to eliminate their respective spouses. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than one year and two months.She was not involved in any other criminal case and the complainant had already been examined. The FIR was registered after a delay of more than two years from the date of death, it added.The Bench observed that whether an illicit relationship existed between the petitioner and co-accused was a matter for trial and could not be determined at the stage of bail.Significantly, the Court held that it would not be fair to keep the petitioner behind bars solely on the basis of telephonic conversations without proof of charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of medical evidence establishing cause of death.The Court further observed that being a woman, the petitioner was entitled to consideration under the proviso to Section 480(1)(ii) of BNSS. It also noted that continued incarceration would not serve any meaningful purpose, especially when the complainant had already been examined and there was no likelihood of evidence being tampered with.Allowing the petition, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG HaryanaMr. Ajey Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainantTitle: Seema Saini v. State of HaryanaClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused In Double Murder Case Registered After 2 Years Of Death

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags