Judicial consideration for bail revolves around the gravity of offences, evidence reliability, and potential risks of absconding, especially in serious cases like murder.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in FIR No.313/2016 dated 21.07.2016, registered at Police Station Khyala for offences under Section 302 IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under--

a) The instant FIR was lodged on the statement of Head Constable Mahavir (No.1143/W). It is stated that on 21.07.2016 at about 6:00 PM a person namely, Sanjay Thakur (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim/deceased') was brought to Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, in a severely injured condition on an e-Rickshaw by the petitioners herein. The injured victim was admitted in the emergency ward and was declared brought dead. It is stated that on questioning, the petitioners told the Head Constable Mahavir that they found the deceased in an injured state near Sunil Dairy and that they brought him to the hospital for the sake of humanity. It is stated that the clothes of the petitioners were soaked in blood. The victim was declared as brought dead. It is stated that when Head Constable Mahavir arrived at the emergency ward, he could not find the petitioners there. It is stated that while searching for the petitioners herein, when Head Constable Mahavir came out of the ward, he saw that the petitioners were at the main gate of the hospital and the e-Rickshaw in which they had brought the deceased was also not present there. Police was informed. On receiving the information Police reached the spot and the statement of the Head Constable Mahavir was recorded. On the basis of the said statement FIR No.313/2016 dated 21.07.2016, was registered at Police Station Khyala for offences under Section 302 IPC.

b) Investigation revealed that Nidhu Devi (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1683/2021) is the wife of the deceased. Investigation further revealed that the petitioners were residing at House No. N-153, Gali No.3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. It was also revealed that Nidhu Devi had gone to the village and brought the deceased to Delhi on the pretext of getting him a job. It was revealed that the petitioners and the deceased were living in the same room at House No. N-153, Gali No.3, Vishnu Garden, Delhi.

c) The MLC of the deceased records the following injuries:

a) Abrasions over parietal region.

b) swelling on the parietal and temporal region of the scalp.

c) bruising over both the eyes.

d) CLW approx 2cm x 1cm over left eyelid.

e) bruise over nose and upper lip.

f) incised wound approx 7cm x 1cm over front of the neck.

g) dried blood on nostrils and mouth.

Injury No.7 in the Post Mortem report, which has been inflicted by a knife reads as under:

"One incised wound of size 5cm x 2cm x cartilage deep present on the anterior aspect of neck with exposing neck muscles and cricoid cartilage. Surface of the wound covered by clotted blood and reddish in colour. On exploration the underlying muscles and fascia i.e. cricothyroid fascia cut with full thickness and cricoid cartilage cut partly....."

d) The petitioners were arrested on 21.07.2016. Charge-sheet has been filed. Trial has commenced.

e) Charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302 /201/34 IPC.

f) The last of the bail application, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Tis Hazari Courts on 07.05.2021.

g) Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been in custody since 21.07.2016. He states that out of 23 witnesses, 19 witnesses have been examined. He further states that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He contends that the petiti