The court ruled that serious allegations and substantial evidence in murder conspiracy cases warrant denial of bail, emphasizing the risk of evidence tampering and public safety.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 120B - Bail application - Accused, a key conspirator in the murder of her husband, seeking bail on humanitarian grounds due to custody of minor children - Serious allegations of conspiracy and substantial electronic evidence presented - Prior legal precedents distinguished from the present case. (Paras 1, 6, 11, 13)

(B) Bail - Denial of bail is warranted when serious allegations are established, particularly in cases involving conspiracy to commit murder, suggesting a risk of tampering with evidence or flight. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2019 for allegedly conspiring to murder her husband, with charges of facilitating the crime alongside co-accused. The bail is requested based on the grounds of her children’s welfare amid allegations of family dysfunction post-arrest.

Findings of Court:
The court finds significant evidence supporting the charge against the petitioner, particularly electronic communications corroborating her involvement.

Issues: The court addressed whether the presumption of innocence and humanitarian grounds justified bail against serious murder conspiracy allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Given the serious nature of the accusations and substantial evidence against the petitioner, the court held that the presumption of innocence does not outweigh the gravity of the charges, warranting the denial of bail.

Result: Petition and applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail due to false implication. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's humanitarian grounds and family situation presented. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. state counters with serious conspiracy allegations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. cctv and forensic evidence implicate petitioner. (Para 11)
5. previous case relied upon is distinguishable. (Para 12 , 13)
6. court denies bail based on seriousness of allegations. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Petitioner is in custody in FIR No. 329/2019, under Section 302 /34/120B IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi since 03.05.2019. By this petition, she is seeking regular bail on the ground that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

2. Notice issued.

3. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking regular bail purely on humanitarian grounds, as there is no one to take care of her three minor children, aged 13 years, 09 years and 06 years. It is submitted that after petitioner's arrest, one of her daughter became a victim of sexual harassment, in relation to which FIR No. 460/2020, under Section 354A IPC r/w Section 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered at police station New Usmanpur, Distt. North East, Delhi. It is further submitted that another daughter of petitioner is suffering from brain injury, as one of the bone in her brain is cracked and she is under continuous treatment and is presently in the custody of Anju Jain, her sister-in-law (nanad) and Manoj Jain, brother-in-law (nandoi), who are not taking her for a regular consultation and treatment.

5. Learned counsel submits that after petitioner's arrest, Anju Jain and Manoj Jain have filed a suit for partition with respect to house of petitioner, which is in the name of petitioner's husband (since deceased) against the interests of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was running a play school in the said property/house and a complaint against Anju Jain and Manoj Jain, who are in possession of the said property, has been filed by the petitioner for misappropriation of jewellery articles and cash worth Rs.22 Lacs.

6. Learned counsel further submits that three minor children of petitioner are in the custody of Anju Jain and Manoj Jain and they are being mentally and physically harassed by them and are being deprived of their basic needs and education. Learned counsel relied upon decision dated 06.10.2020 of a Division Bench of this Court in Crl. A.194/2019, titled as Kajal Vs. State, in support of petitioner's case.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present petition by submitting that the petitioner is the main conspirator, who had hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Rahul Jain and Vijay Kumar to kill her husband.

8. Further submitted that petitioner, who was in illicit relationship with Rahul Jain, hatched a conspiracy to kill her husband-Subodh Jain. Rahul Jain gave the contract of murder to his friend Vijay Kumar, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, Haryana on Rs.1.50 Lacs. They all met on 29.04.2019 at McDonalds. Rahul Jain gave 10 sleeping pills to petitioner and told her to mix these in the lunch of her husband. Petitioner gave key of the main gate of her house to accused Vijay. On 01.05.2019, petitioner mixed the sleeping pills in the lunch of her husband and went to her in-law's home with her kids and informed Rahul Jain that she had done her work. Rahul Jain, sent her associate Vijay to kill Subodh Jain. As per their plan, Vijay reached at the house and strangulated Subodh while he was sleeping.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State further submitted that accused Rahul Jain was arrested on 02.05.2019. Key of the house of petitioner, which was returned by Vijay to Rahul at the time of receiving of contract killing money and two mobile phones used

Click Here to Read the rest of this document