JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 153 30.11.2019 Nangal, District Rupnagar 302 IPC (Section 201 IPC added subsequently.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating since Dec 3, 2019, upon her arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. Para 27 of the bail application declares that the petitioner has no criminal history.

2 (a) The brief facts of the case are that the police recorded statement of complainant- Shaukat Ali under Section 154 Cr.P.C . in which he stated that his brother-Rasid Mohammad, who works as a labourer, was living separately with his wife Ruksaar (the petitioner). They have a 8 years old daughter, who is living with her maternal grand- parents at Kalka. Rashid Mohammad used to consume liquor. On this account there were misunderstanding between him and his wife. On 29.11.2019, Rasid (his brother) had reached home after consuming liquor and then both husband and wife had entered into an altercation. The complainant did not intervene because it was usual thing and their personal matter. In the morning around 8:30 A.M., Ruksaar-the petitioner contacted one of her brother-in-laws and stated that her husband was not waking up at home. After that they had reached their home. They noticed that Rasid Mohammad was lying on the floor with injury on his head from which blood was oozing out. They also noticed that his face had been cleaned; blood soaked clothes were lying nearby and floor had also been washed. However, they could notice the drops of blood on the floor. Based on this, the police registered an FIR as mentioned above.

2(b) As per post-mortem examination, the cause of death was ante mortem injuries which were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. The police found the involvement of the petitioner and she was arrested. Later on, it was revealed that she had inflicted blows twice on the head of her husband with 'Ghotna '. The police also recorded disclosure statement of the petitioner and recovered the clothes, which were placed on the roof after washing.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The contention on behalf of the State is that the offence is heinous in nature as the accusation is of murdering her husband, and despite being a woman, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. Ms Rakhi Sharma Ld. Amicus argued that although the legislature has kept the bail provisions lenient for women, such leniency is not blanket and the question of granting or refusing bail would vary from case to case depending upon a cumulative assessment of evidence and other factors.

REASONING:

6. As per paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused has a nine-year-old daughter, who is currently residing with her maternal grandparents, who are running in old age.

The complainant's family has not ever volunteered to take her with them and raise her.

7. The brother of the deceased in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased was an alcoholic and on this account, husband and wife would always enter into an altercation. He further specifically stated that on the night of the incident also, they heard altercations from their house but did not intervene because of their personal and usual matter. The weapon of the offence allegedly used by the petitioner was not a specific weapon but an article which is used in kitchen on routine basis. Thus given the relationship between husband and wife and the weapon being normal kitchen article creates a possibility of the occurrence having taken place in heat of passion.

Furthermore in Para No.15 of the petition, it has been mentioned that maternal grandparents of the daughter of the petitioner are unable to take care of her because of their old age and on the other hand no