233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57191-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 MAYA ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This is the third application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.269, dated 31.07.2024, registered at Police Station Khol, District Rewari, Haryana under Sections 61 and 103(1) of BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused.

3. The present case was registered on the basis of a complaint given to the police by Karan Singh with the allegations that on 30.07.2024, during the night, he was on duty, while his wife Reena was present at home alongwith his brother-in-law Amit. At about 1.40 a.m., he received a telephonic call from his brother-in-law Amit that Sudhir son of Dharambir has committed the murder of his wife Reena by causing injuries with a heavy stone and by strangulating her. Thereafter, he reached there and alleged that he has satisfied himself that his wife has been murdered by Sudhir. He further alleged that 3–4 cases were already pending against Sudhir at their behest and in this regard, he had ultimately filed a complaint regarding extending threats by Maya Devi, mother of said Sudhir, on 06.07.2024 and he sought action against her. During investigation, Sudhir was arrested on 03.08.2024 and petitioner was arrested on 23.09.2024 and allegations against her are regarding hatching of conspiracy. After completion of investigation, final report has been presented in the Court for Trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even as per the allegations in the FIR, co-accused Sudhir had committed the murder. The deceased was present in her house alongwith her brother namely Amit, who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence. There is no allegation that the petitioner was accompanying said Sudhir at the time of the incident and she has been implicated as an accused only on the ground of hatching a conspiracy. Learned counsel next contended that now, even the solitary eye witness namely Amit has died, as apparent from the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, which shows that the death certificate of said Amit was produced before the Court by the Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel lastly contended that there is no evidence against the petitioner that she had hatched any conspiracy and she has been implicated as an accused merely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, in these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner is not required and she deserves to be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and has sought dismissal its dismissal on account of gravity of offence.

6. The petitioner is 53 years of age. The only allegations against her are regarding hatching of conspiracy. She was admittedly not present at the time when the murder was committed by her son Sudhir. Even the solitary eye witness namely Amit, who was the brother of the deceased and was allegedly present at the spot, has died. As to whether the petitioner had participated in hatching of any conspiracy or not shall be the subject matter of trial. The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024 and the trial is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude and, in these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner is not required and she deserves to be released on bail.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed and petitioner i