Urmila Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

Urmila Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC subject to conditions: bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount to satisfaction of the Trial Court; appearance whenever the matter is taken up; providing a working mobile number to the IO and not changing it without prior intimation; no criminal activity and no communication/contact with witnesses; no change of residential address without intimation to this Court by affidavit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, arraigned for offences under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC in FIR No.238/2018 and in custody for about four years, is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Court's answer

The Petitioner is admitted to bail in FIR No.238/2018, subject to conditions including furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Ratio / Principle

Grounds for bail: seven of twenty-seven prosecution witnesses examined and five dropped; the Petitioner has been in jail for the last four years; the trial will take substantial time; and co-accused brother Rohit has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide Order dated 24.02.2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S.439 CrPC — Offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC (FIR No.238/2018, PS Sarai Rohilla) — Petitioner, daughter-in-law and widow of the elder son of the deceased (mother-in-law), alleged to have conspired with her brother Rohit to kill the mother-in-law — Charge Sheet filed; only one formal witness left; seven of twenty-seven prosecution witnesses examined, five dropped — Petitioner in custody for about four years — co-accused brother Rohit already admitted to bail by the Court vide Order dated 24.02.2024 — trial to take substantial time — bail granted on conditions: personal bond Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount; appearance as directed; working mobile number to be provided to IO and not changed without prior intimation; no criminal activity; no contact with witnesses; no change of residence without intimation to the Court by affidavit.

$~1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 10^th January, 2025

- BAIL APPLN. 4495/2024

URMILA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manish Yadav & Mr. Himanshu Chand, Advocates

Versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor for RespondentState with Inspctor Chotte Lal

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

The present Bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed for grant of bail in FIR No.238/2018, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi for the offences under Sections 302/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ hereinafter ).

It is submitted that the Petitioner is the daughter-in-law and a widow of the elder son of the deceased (mother-in-law), having three minor children, who are totally dependent upon her. The Petitioner along with her husband and three sons was residing on the first floor of the Jhuggi and the deceased (mother-in-law) along with her younger son was residing on the ground floor of the Jhuggi.

The FIR in question was registered at the instance of a neighbour deceased Abdul Salam (PW-2) and after the investigation, the Petitioner and other co-accused were arrested.

BAIL APPLN. 4495/2024 Page 1 of 3

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 17:47:07

It is submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against her, except the Disclosure Statement and the circumstantial evidence by way of statement of witnesses. She was arrested on 26.02.2018 on the basis of statement of one Mohd. Mumtaz who had allegedly seen the brother of Petitioner, namely, Rohit one day prior to the day when the deceased was found dead on 19.06.2018.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further argued that admittedly the Petitioner was not present at the scene of crime and the only incriminating evidence is the CDR record to show that she was in touch with Rohit, who is none other than her own brother and it cannot be taken as a suspicious circumstance. There is no cogent evidence against the Petitioner nor there is any recovery.

It is submitted that the Charge Sheet has already been filed and the testimony of only one formal witness is left to be examined. It is submitted that the Petitioner is in jail for last four years and no purpose would be served in keeping her in Jail. Moreover, her brother Rohit has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2024.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State has argued that out of twenty seven witnesses, seven have been examined. 8. Submissions heard and Status Report Perused.

Pertinently, out of twenty seven witnesses cited by the Prosecution, seven witnesses have been already examined and five witnesses have been dropped by the Prosecution. The allegations against the Petitioner are of hatching a conspiracy with her brother Rohit to kill her mother-in-law, who has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide Order dated 24.02.2024. The Petitioner is in Jail for last four years and it will take substantial time to

BAIL APPLN. 4495/2024 Page 2 of 3

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 17:47:07

conclude the trial.

In view of the above, the Petitioner is admitted to bail on the following conditions:-

a) The Petitioner/Accused shall furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

b) The Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

c) The Petitioner/Accused shall provide mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and she shall not change the mobile number, without prior intimate to the Investigating Officer concerned.

d) The Petitioner/Accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses.

f) The Petitioner/Accused shall not change his residential address and in case of change of the residential address, the same shall be intimated to this Court, by way of affidavit.

A copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent as well as to the learned Trial Court.

The Bail Application and pending Application are accordingly disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE

JANUARY 10, 2025/ r

BAIL APPLN. 4495/2024 Page 3 of 3

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Da te:1 0.01.2025 17:47:07