The court emphasized that bail is a discretionary remedy, particularly in serious offences like murder, where credible evidence suggests premeditated intent.

ORDER :

1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11196035240220 of 2024 registered with Vadi Police Station, District:Vadodara City for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 54 of B.N.S.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hitesh L. Gupta appearing for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot appearing for the original complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady who has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 14.8.2024 and since then she is in custody. The applicant is suffering from typical medical condition and is also undergoing a surgery. The applicant has undergone incarceration of more than seven years and there has been no progress in the trial. The applicant happens to be wife of the deceased. It was the applicant herself who had noticed her husband i.e. deceased lying in an unconscious condition and had informed the first informant and other relatives about the same. Had present applicant having committed the offence, she would not have informed the relatives of the deceased about the condition of the deceased.

3.1 It is the case of prosecution that the deceased was strangulated with a scarf and the said scarf was lying as it is at the place of incident in the neck of the deceased when the relatives of the deceased came to the place. If the applicant had killed the deceased with the said scarf, before informing the relatives of the deceased, she would have destroyed the piece of evidence. The story of the prosecution case is highly unreliable. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

4. The application is opposed by learned APP contending that the applicant and the other co-accused were in an illicit relationship and because of the same, the deceased was done to death. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant has also opposed the present application contending that the applicant has actively participated in the present offence as the applicant had a strong motive for commission of the offence in question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record. As per the case of prosecution, the present applicant happens to be wife of the deceased and despite being married to the deceased, she was having extra marital affair with the other co-accused namely Sahil and because of the said illicit relationship the deceased appears to have been done to death.

6.1 As the story of the prosecution goes, on the fateful day at around 7:45 a.m. the applicant herein had telephoned the first informant, who is father of the deceased and had informed him that the deceased was not getting up. Thereafter, the first informant had gone to the place of incident. From the record it appears that the applicant and her husband i.e. deceased were living alone in the house when the incident had taken place. Therefore the applicant was in best position to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had died.

6.2 The P.M. Note indicates that there were 22 external injuries found on the body of the deceased during the postmortem. This means that the deceased was subjected to physical torture before he was dead. The cause of death as per the P.M. Note is Asphyxia due to neck and mouth compression. Thus, the deceased appears to have died due to smothering. Learned APP has drawn the attention of this court to the WhatsApp chats which had taken place between the applicant and the other co-accused which prima facie indicates that it is a case of pre planned murder.

7.