Point of Law : Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Bail Application - petitioner has spent nearly eight years in the prison, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined - Court is inclined to grant bail to petitioner on conditions.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.281/2013 dated 27.05.2013 registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a) A complaint was given by one Savita Devi, wife of Raj Kumar, R/o A-52, Sainik Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, stating that her brother Vinod who was residing at House No.57, Om Vihar Phase 1-A, Bayala Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, was married to Jyoti/the petitioner herein. It is stated that the relationship between the petitioner and her husband were strained because of one Ajit/co-accused, who used to work and stay in the same house in which the petitioner and her husband used to live. It is stated that there were frequent quarrels between husband and wife because of Ajit who also happens to be a distant relative of the petitioner. It is stated by the complainant that she used to go to her brother’s house to give him food. It is stated that on 25.05.2013, the complainant went to the house of Vinod to feed him and while she was returning the petitioner herein warned her that if something were to happen to Vinod (deceased) the complainant would be held responsible. It is stated in the complaint that on the very next day i.e. on 26.05.2013, at about 4:30 in the morning petitioner’s mother called the complainant and informed her that her brother had passed away and that the Police had come to their house and that the complainant should not reveal anything to the Police. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant suspected that the petitioner herein, Jyoit and the co-accused Ajit have murdered her brother.

b) MLC of the deceased was conducted vide MLC No.13029/13 and the cause of death was not specified in the MLC. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Post-mortem was conducted and the post-mortem indicated that the victim had died due to strangulation. On the basis of the post-mortem, FIR No. 281/2013 dated 27.05.2013 was registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The petitioner herein and the co-accused, Ajit were arrested on 27.05.2013.

c) Disclosure statements were taken from the petitioner and the co-accused Ajit wherein they confessed to their crime.

d) Statement of the son of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation charge-sheet was filed on 24.08.2013 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Charges have been framed. The trial has commenced and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. The case is fixed for recording the Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

e) The petitioner filed an application for bail being IA No.03/2020, which was rejected by the learned Additional Session Judge-05, West Tis Hazari Courts, by an order dated 01.03.2021.

f) Thereafter the petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of bail.

3. Mr. Joginder Tuli, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in judicial custody now for nearly 8 years. He states that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the Court has to examine the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C which is to be followed by the defence evidence. He would argue that since all the prosecution witnesses have been examined there is no question of tempering with the evidence. He also contends that the petitioner has right to ensure that she is properly represented and for that she has to instruct her lawyer properly to prepare a strong defence. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions in the statement of the child witness inasmuch as in Court the child deposed that Ajit caught hold of his father and the petitioner was pressing the throat of his father, though no such thing has been