CDRs Are Corroborative Of Contact & Don’t Prima Facie Justify Continued Incarceration: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Woman Booked For Mother’s Murder

The applicant filed the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking regular bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The State also relies on CDRs to reflect sustained inter se calls between the Applicant and co-accused Kartik Chauhan before, during and after the incident, as indicia of conspiracy; however, the CDRs are, at best, corroborative of contact and do not, prima facie, advance the case to the point of justifying continued incarceration. Their evidentiary worth will be tested at trial.”

Advocate Manish Kumar represented the Petitioner, while APP Mukesh Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The sister of the deceased woman reported a telephonic intimation received from her brother that their sister had died under suspicious circumstances. Upon receiving this information, the investigating team reached the spot and found the deceased, lying in a pool of blood in a room. The caller (sister of the deceased) also arrived and stated that she had been informed of the death by her brother. Based on this, the FIR was registered, and investigation commenced.

During the course of investigation, the Applicant was arrested and her disclosure statement was recorded, wherein she stated that she was married but had separated from her husband and was residing with another man. The Applicant stood arraigned for the alleged murder of her mother. She further revealed that the other man with whom she was staying with, used to assault her as she was unemployed. During this period, the Applicant developed an intimate relationship with the co-accused, and both expressed their desire to elope and get married. She further stated that when she requested her mother for money to facilitate the said marriage, she refused and insisted that she reconcile with her husband. Owing to such refusal and opposition to their association, it was alleged, the Applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused, hatched a conspiracy to commit the offence.

The Prosecution alleged that the Applicant confessed to her involvement in the murder, and was thus arrested under Sections 302/120- B/34 IPC. It was further alleged that, pursuant to her disclosure, a stole stated to be used to staunch bleeding from the deceased’s neck, was recovered from the rear of the house where she had thrown it. The chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 394, 397, 328, 411, 34, and 120B of the IPC. The FSL report received thereafter was filed as part of a supplementary chargesheet.

Reasoning

Considering that the Applicant stood arraigned for the alleged murder of her mother, the Bench noted that the accusation was unquestionably grave and the charge under Section 302 IPC carried the severest penal consequences. “While gravity of the offence is a relevant factor, but it is not the sole touchstone. At the stage of bail, the Court does not undertake a mini-trial or return conclusive findings that might prejudice either side at trial. The inquiry is limited to a prima facie appraisal of the accusation and the material on record, viewed through the settled bail parameters: nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role alleged, the quality and reliability of the prosecution material at first look, the likelihood of abscondence, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents, and the stage and progress of the trial. The presumption of innocence remains the governing premise”, the Bench held.

It was further noticed that there were no eye-witnesses, and the case was resting on a circumstantial assemblage, disclosures, recoveries, CDRs, and a TIP of jewellery. The Bench found no cogent material that directly connected the Applicant to the homicidal act and the suggested domestic/property motive could not supply the missing link.

The Prosecution had alleged that the Applicant, in furtherance of a conspiracy with the co-accused, administered sleeping pills to the deceased and her maternal uncle by mixing the same in tea, thereby rendering them unconscious, which allegedly facilitated the commission of the offence. However, the Bench noted that a prima facie examination of the FSL report did not support the presence of any intoxicating or sedative substance in the relevant exhibits.

The Bench noted that the applicant had undergone incarceration for a period exceeding three years and eight months. The Bench further found that the Applicant is a 28-year-old woman, a law graduate, with no prior criminal antecedents. Considering the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant, the snail-pace of trial, the absence of direct prima facie evidence, her status as a single mother, and her clean antecedents, the Bench directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000.

Cause Title: Devyani Kundra v. State of NCT of Delhi ( Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9421)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Manish Kumar, Shrikant Sharma, Prium Verma

Respondent: APP Mukesh Kumar, Inspector Muneesh Kr.

Click here to read/download Order