The right to speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration of pre-trial detention length, especially for women with dependents, justifying bail in serious cases with significant delays.

ORDER :

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.)

This successive bail petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C ., praying to enlarge the petitioner- accused No.3 on bail in S.C.No.877/2021 pending on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, arising out of Cr.No.18/2021 registered at Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent – State and perused the material on record.

3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court for similar relief. Crl.P.No.9775/2022 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.4.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12281/2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 4.12.2023, permitting the petitioner to renew her request if the trial did not commence within a period of six months, provided that the petitioner participates actively in the expeditious trial.

4. Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner once again approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking bail in Crl.Misc.No.1964/2025. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2024.

5. This Court while dismissing the bail petition in Crl.P.No.9775/2022 has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, hence, facts in detail need not be adverted to. However, the relevant facts which may be necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under:

Petitioner/accused No.3 is the second wife of the first informant by name C.R.Devender Singh. Deceased Siddarath Devender Singh is first informant’s son born to his first wife. One Dr.Anjali Geetha, first informant’s sister and her husband Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW6) were issueless. They owned valuable immovable properties. After the death of his wife, Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla was looking after the properties. Petitioner was under the impression that, the entire property belonging to Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla will be inherited by the deceased and her children will not get the property. Hence, she hatched a conspiracy with accused No.1, with whom she had an acquaintance and assured payment of supari of Rs.4 lakhs to eliminate the deceased. In turn, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4. In furtherance of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 kidnapped the deceased in a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.AP 03-CB-4034 on the night intervening 18/19.1.2021 and took him towards Andhra Pradesh. On the way, accused Nos.1 and 4 committed his murder by strangulating with the seat belt and buried the dead body in a forest area.

6. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 , 201, 120-B, 364 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is no more. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are facing trial before the Court of learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-63).

7. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is as under:

i. Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. She has been falsely implicated, only on the basis of confession statement of the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

ii. According to the prosecution, motive is attributed to the petitioner alleging that she wanted to knock off the properties of CW6- Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla, whereas the said witness examined as PW6 has not supported the said version of the prosecution.

iii. The material witnesses including the first informant/CW1 examined as PW5 has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

iv. There are no eye witness