Custody duration, lack of involvement in other cases, and delay in trial due to COVID-19 can be considered as grounds for granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.53 dated 17.02.2020, for offence punishable under Sections 346, 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was registered on the statement of Rajesh Sharma, with the allegations that on 13.02.2020, his younger brother Ravi went away from home and they were searching for him but could not find him. The FIR also gave the description and clothes worn by Ravi. Later on, on 20.02.2020, the police party found the dead body of the deceased in a forest area of village Sondh. Thereafter, the police initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of 02 persons namely Vishnu Kumar and Ashok Kumar under Section 175 Cr.P.C. wherein Vishnu Kumar stated that his brother/deceased was a drug addict and due to intoxication, he may have died after falling into the well. Similar was the statement made by Ashok Kumar, another brother of the deceased - Ravi.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 11.03.2020, the police recorded the supplementary statement of Rajesh Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which for the first time, it is stated that he suspect that the co-accused Hem Dutt @ Lala and the petitioner - Rakhi may have kill Ravi and thrown his body into well. The ground for suspicion was stated to be a fight between the deceased and both the accused and for that reason, they might have killed him.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that thereafter, the co-accused Hem Dutt @ Lala were arrested and the police recorded his confessional statement.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that as per the disclosure statement of the co-accused - Hem Dutt @ Lala, it is stated that as per the plan with the petitioner, in order to take revenge of the enmity with Ravi, he called him on 13.02.2020 and as per the pre-plan, he offered drinks to Ravi and after he was heavily drunk, he took him into the forest area of village Sondh and stopped his motorcycle near a well on the pretext of urinating and when Ravi was sitting on the edge of the well, he pushed him with intention to kill.

6. Later on, the petitioner was arrested and as per the own disclosure statement of the petitioner - Rakhi, it was stated that she was having an affair with the deceased - Ravi that she has developed illegitimate relations with the deceased - Ravi and they were involved in each other. Hem Dutt @ Lala used to visit her husband Chet Ram, who is an Electrician and the petitioner also developed illegitimate relationship with Hem Dutt @ Lala. On coming to know the same, the deceased - Ravi started threatening the petitioner and on that pretext, the petitioner - Rakhi and Hem Dutt @ Lala prepared a plan to kill Ravi. It is further submitted that except this disclosure statement, there is no other evidence against the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the first offender and whether she had a meeting of mind with the co-accused Hem Dutt @ Lala, will be a matter of evidence/trial. It is also submitted that it is own case of the prosecution that at the time when the incident took place, when Hem Dutt @ Lala allegedly pushed the deceased into a well, the petitioner was not present and the allegations against her are only of conspiracy prior to that, which again will be a matter of trial/evidence.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, there are call details between the petitioner and the co-accused Hem Dutt @ Lala as well as the petitioner and deceased - Ravi and the co-accused Hem Dutt @ Lala and deceased. It is further submitted that the call details of the petitioner and the deceased given in the affida