In a bail application involving serious charges, the court must balance the nature of allegations with the evidentiary value of witness testimony as tested during cross-examination, the period of pre-trial incarceration, and the projected time for trial conclusion, prioritizing individual liberty when trial delays are significant.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 240/2024, registered at Police Station Alipur, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B/302/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 25.03.2024, pursuant to receipt of DD no. 20A, SI Rajkumar had reached the place of incident in Bakhtawarpur, Alipur, Delhi, where a woman, Aarti, was found lying in a pool of blood with her throat slit. Blood stains were found on the staircase leading to the first floor as well as inside a room situated on the first floor of the house. A blood stained vegetable knife, alleged to be the weapon of offence, was recovered from the spot. The Crime Team and FSL Team had inspected the scene of crime and the exhibits found at the spot were seized. The injured was shifted to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where she was declared brought dead on 25.03.2024 at 09:19 AM. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital for post mortem examination. During investigation, statements of the relatives of the deceased were recorded before the SDM, Alipur, since the marriage of the deceased with co-accused Manjeet had taken place on 08.03.2018 and the death had occurred within seven years of marriage. The brother of the deceased alleged that the deceased had been subjected to persistent harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demands by her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and father-in-law. It was also alleged that the husband of the deceased used to physically assault her and that all the accused persons used to taunt and harass her for bringing insufficient dowry. On the complaint made by the brother of the deceased, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, accused persons – Manjeet (husband), Meena (mother-in-law), Manish (brother-in-law) and Bhim Singh (father-in-law/present applicant) – were arrested. During further investigation, the statement of Master ‘K’, the minor son of the deceased, was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that his father had killed his mother in the presence of his grandparents and uncle. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant had been present at the spot at the time of commission of the offence, which, according to the prosecution, is further corroborated by the CDR analysis of his mobile phone. The weapon of offence and other exhibits had been sent to FSL and the report is awaited. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 304B/302/498A/34 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has remained in judicial custody since 25.03.2024. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against the present applicant either in the FIR or in the statements recorded before the learned SDM. It is stated that even as per the statement of the complainant, i.e. the brother of the deceased, the allegation against the applicant is based merely on suspicion, as the complainant himself had stated that the deceased had never made any complaint against the present applicant during her lifetime. It is further submitted that the mother of the deceased, in her statement before the learned SDM, had stated that whenever disputes arose in the family, the present applicant used to pacify and counsel the family members. It is also argued that the statement of another mater