Introduction:

In a significant order balancing the seriousness of allegations with the foundational principles governing bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Seema Saini, a 39-year-old woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband and the wife of her alleged paramour. The case, titled Seema Saini v. State of Haryana, arose from an FIR registered at Yamuna Nagar under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 328 (causing hurt by poison), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the earlier Section 439 CrPC), seeking regular bail. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, while allowing the petition, underscored several critical factors — an inordinate delay of more than two years in registration of the FIR, absence of postmortem examination at the time of death, lack of direct recovery from the petitioner, and the fact that the case primarily rested on call detail records.

The Court emphasized that issues such as the existence of an alleged illicit relationship are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail. The ruling reiterates that pre-trial incarceration cannot substitute proof and that bail jurisprudence must rest on evidence, not suspicion.

Factual Background:

The case revolves around the death of Pardeep Kumar, husband of the petitioner, who passed away at his residence on 06 August 2022. At the time of his death, no suspicion was raised by family members, and no postmortem or medico-legal examination was conducted. The death was treated as natural.

Nearly one year and ten months later, on 26 June 2024, Rajesh Kumar — brother of the deceased — lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had been in frequent telephonic contact with co-accused Anil Kumar, even after her husband’s death. Based on this assertion, suspicion was raised that the petitioner and Anil Kumar were allegedly involved in an illicit relationship and had conspired to poison Pardeep Kumar to remove obstacles to their relationship.

The FIR was eventually registered on 20 September 2024, almost two years after the death of Pardeep Kumar.

Adding to the suspicion, the prosecution alleged that Sunita, the wife of co-accused Anil Kumar, also died on 28 November 2023 under similar circumstances. Notably, in her case as well, no postmortem examination or medico-legal inquiry was conducted.

The prosecution relied significantly on call detail records showing 30 telephonic conversations between the petitioner and co-accused Anil Kumar between 01 July 2022 and 06 August 2022 — the period immediately preceding Pardeep Kumar’s death. Tablets of salt “Diphenoxylate” were allegedly recovered from co-accused Anil Kumar. However, no recovery was made from the petitioner.

Allegations by the Prosecution:

The prosecution theory was built on circumstantial evidence. It alleged:

• The petitioner and co-accused Anil Kumar were involved in an illicit relationship.
• Both allegedly conspired to eliminate their respective spouses.
• Pardeep Kumar was poisoned at home.
• The absence of postmortem was allegedly part of a strategy to avoid detection.
• Call detail records established a close nexus between the petitioner and co-accused before and after the death.

The State, assisted by counsel for the complainant, argued that telephonic conversations, when read alongside the suspicious deaths of both spouses, pointed towards a conspiracy. It was contended that serious charges like murder under Section 302 IPC warranted continued custody.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

Senior Advocate Samay Sandhawalia, appearing for the petitioner, advanced multiple grounds in support of bail:

1. Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in FIR

Counsel highlighted that the FIR was lodged nearly two years after the death of the petitioner’s husband. At the time of death, no suspicion was raised by any family member. The delay, it was argued, cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations.

The delay was neither satisfactorily explained nor supported by newly discovered evidence.

2. Absence of Medical Evidence

A crucial contention was that no postmortem or inquest was conducted at the time of death. There was no medical evidence establishing the cause of death as poisoning. The prosecution’s theory of poisoning was thus speculative.

Without medical confirmation of cause of death, the allegation of murder lacked foundational support.

3. No Direct Recovery from the Petitioner

While tablets of Diphenoxylate were allegedly recovered from co-accused Anil Kumar, nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner. There was no poison, no instrument, and no documentary evidence directly linking her to the alleged crime.

4. Case Based on Call Detail Records

The prosecution’s primary reliance on call records, counsel argued, was insufficient to sustain continued incarceration. Mere telephonic contact does not establish conspiracy unless corroborated by concrete evidence.

5. Custodial Period and Conduct

The petitioner had already been in custody for over one year and three months. She was not involved in any other criminal case. The complainant had already been examined during trial, minimizing the possibility of tampering with evidence.

6. Property Dispute Angle

Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint alleging that the complainant had withdrawn ₹21 lakhs from her account using a pre-signed cheque. This suggested a possible property-related motive behind the belated complaint.

7. Special Consideration for Women Under BNSS

Relying on the proviso to Section 480(1)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, counsel argued that women accused are entitled to special consideration while deciding bail applications.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and Complainant:

The State, represented by AAG Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar and counsel for the complainant Ajey Bishnoi, opposed bail.

They contended:

1. The telephonic exchanges between the petitioner and co-accused demonstrated closeness and coordination.
2. Both deceased individuals had died under suspicious circumstances.
3. The delay in FIR should not overshadow the gravity of allegations.
4. The alleged conspiracy to eliminate spouses warranted strict scrutiny.
5. It was argued that the nature of the offence — double spousal murder conspiracy — required the petitioner’s continued detention.

Court’s Analysis and Observations:

Justice Sanjay Vashisth carefully examined the material placed on record and made several critical observations.

1. Delay in Registration of FIR

The Court noted that the FIR was registered more than two years after the death of Pardeep Kumar. Such a substantial delay, especially in a case alleging murder, was a significant factor weighing in favour of bail.

At the time of death, no suspicion was raised, and no medico-legal examination was conducted. This absence weakened the prosecution’s narrative at the bail stage.

2. Absence of Postmortem Examination

The Court emphasized that no postmortem was conducted to ascertain cause of death. Without medical evidence confirming poisoning, the allegation remained speculative.

The Court observed that bail cannot be denied solely on suspicion unsupported by medical or forensic material.

3. Call Detail Records Not Conclusive

While acknowledging the telephonic conversations, the Court held that mere call exchanges cannot conclusively establish conspiracy at the stage of bail.

The Bench observed that it would not be fair to keep the petitioner behind bars solely on the basis of telephonic conversations without proof of charges beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Illicit Relationship Issue for Trial

The Court categorically stated that whether an illicit relationship existed between the petitioner and co-accused was a matter for trial. Such issues cannot be decided at the stage of bail proceedings.

5. Custodial Period and Likelihood of Tampering

The petitioner had been in custody for more than one year and two months. The complainant had already been examined. There was no material indicating likelihood of evidence tampering.

6. Special Consideration as Woman Accused

The Court also took into account that the petitioner was a woman and entitled to consideration under the proviso to Section 480(1)(ii) of BNSS.

7. Purpose of Continued Incarceration

The Bench observed that continued incarceration would not serve any meaningful purpose in the present circumstances.

Judgment:

After evaluating all factors, the Court allowed the bail petition. It directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court’s order reflects the fundamental principle that bail jurisprudence rests on balancing individual liberty with societal interest. In the absence of medical evidence, direct recovery, or immediate suspicion at the time of death, prolonged incarceration was held unjustified.