Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Section 302 IPC Case Due to Trial Delay

The High Court of Delhi has granted regular bail to Devyani Kundra, who has been in judicial custody for more than three years and eight months in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, the court emphasized that while the allegations are grave, the constitutional right to a speedy trial and humanitarian considerations warrant relief when the judicial process sees no immediate resolution.

Unraveling the Allegations

The case centres on the death of Sudha Rani on February 19, 2022. The prosecution alleged that Devyani Kundra, the daughter of the deceased, conspired with her partner, Kartik Chauhan, to murder her mother. The motive, according to the state, stemmed from the deceased’s staunch opposition to the appellant’s romantic relationship and her demand that she reconcile with her estranged husband.

The prosecution’s narrative was built on a series of dramatic allegations: that the appellant drugged her mother and uncle with sedatives mixed in tea, after which the co-accused arrived with a surgical blade to execute the murder. However, the trial—having dragged on since the charges were framed in February 2023—has seen only two of the twenty-six listed witnesses examined, a pace the court found untenable.

The Judicial Crossroads

The defense mounted a compelling case for bail, anchored in the erosion of the prosecution's theory. Crucially, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report failed to detect any sedative or poisonous substances in either the viscera of the deceased or the blood sample of the uncle. Furthermore, the defense pointed to unresolved domestic disputes, noting that the deceased had previously filed formal complaints against other relatives regarding threats and extortion, suggesting a viable alternative hypothesis for the crime.

Key Observations

Justice Sanjeev Narula’s order highlighted the limitations of the state’s evidentiary position at the current stage:

• "Motive assumes relevance only when there is sufficient evidence to establish the foundational facts of the alleged offence, and motive alone, in the absence of credible evidence, cannot sustain the charge."
• "While the gravity of the offence is a relevant factor, it is not the sole touchstone. At the stage of bail, the Court does not undertake a mini-trial."
• "The protracted nature of the trial and the undue delay in recording evidence also weigh in favour of the Applicant."
• "The Applicant is a young woman aged 28 years and a single mother to a minor child... Prolonged incarceration, in these circumstances, bears directly upon the child’s welfare."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court ultimately concluded that continued detention lacked necessity, as the investigation was long finished and the risk of witness tampering, given that the remaining witnesses were not eyewitnesses, could be mitigated by strict judicial conditions.

Devyani Kundra has been released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a matching surety. The court mandated that she refrain from tampering with evidence, remain reachable to authorities, and report to the police station every two months. This decision serves as a significant reminder that even in cases involving heinous offences under Section 302 IPC , the judiciary retains the mandate to balance the gravity of the crime against the rights of the accused when the machinery of justice enters a period of stagnation. The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and will not influence the final verdict of the trial.