The court emphasizes the need for evidence of motive in circumstantial cases and highlights rights to a speedy trial, especially for female accused.

Order

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

order

2. Her first bail application being SBCRLMB No.253/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024. At the time of dismissing the earlier bail application, this Court has afforded liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after the statement of Dinesh and Satguru are recorded. Now the statements of these witnesses have been recorded in the trial as P.W. 6 & P.W.9. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.01.2023, Malkeet Singh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Hindumalkot, Ganganagar alleging interalia that he is a resident of Khatlabana and is in the profession of grazing sheep and goats and due to acquaintance with Hari Om Meena, Gangman, Fatuhi Station, on his instructions, he also cut the trees and bushes on the side of railway track. He further submitted that at around 7:53 a.m. after receiving a phone call from Hari Om Meena, he rushed near the Laxminarayan Canal Railway Bridge and saw a deadbody of 2-3 years old girl was lying and wrapped in a bedsheet. The injuries were noticed on the head, face and neck of the deceased and blood was oozing from her mouth. Thereafter, Hari Om informed regarding incident to the Station Master and villagers. On the basis of the said information, an FIR No.19/2023 was registered at the Police Station Hindumalkot and investigation commenced. During investigation, petitioner came to be arrested and after usual investigation, a chargesheet under Sections 302 & 201 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against her in the Court of ACJM No.2, Sri Ganganagar.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against her and her incarceration is not warranted. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 19.01.2023 and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and she has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record revealing that the eye-witnesses account of the incident is not available on the record and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence, however, there is a strong submission of the defence to the effect that neither the circumstances put forth against the petitioner is definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. Motive plays an important role in the cases based upon circumstantial evidence and the above preposition time and again have been propounded through a plethora of judicial pronouncements by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, but here in this case, no material is available on record to establish it.

8. After minutely going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the annexed material, I don’t find any conc