Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sushma Devi vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 17 April, 2026
Sr. No. 02
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 288/2024
Sushma Devi ..... Petitioner(s)/ Appellant(s)
q
Through: Mr. Anil Bhan, Advocate
vs
UT of J&K and Anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Shazia Asaf, Advocate vice
Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG for R- 1
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate (Th. Virtual Mode)
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocate for R- 2
Ms. Nandini Mehta, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
17.04.2026
01. Petitioner has invoked sub-Section 3 of Section 483 BNSS read with sub-
Section 2 of Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of order dated 23.10.2024
passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial Court”], vide
which respondent No.2 came to be enlarged on bail in case titled “UT of J&K
through SHO, Police Station, Satwari, Jammu vs. Chander Kant and Ors.” under
Sections 34/302 IPC.
02. As prosecution case would unfurl, on 07.06.2020 Police Station, Satwari
received a written docket stating inter alia that accused Chander Kant Tiwari,
some 08 years ago was married to deceased Rekha Devi. On 24.04.2020,
deceased was invited by her mother for “Satsang” in the parental house to which
her husband-accused Chander Kant was reluctant. It was alleged that on
23.04.2020, when deceased sought permission of her husband, a quarrel took
place between them and her husband with the connivance of his mother and sister,
2
killed the deceased. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.116/2020 came to be
registered and investigation culminated in a charge-sheet in the trial Court.
Accused persons pleaded innocence to the charge, prompting the trial Court to ask
for the prosecution evidence. Prosecution so far has examined 16 out of 36
witnesses cited in the charge-sheet.
03. A perusal of the record reveals that pending trial sister-in-law of the
deceased and daughter of respondent No.2, came to be released on bail by this
Court vide order dated 17.04.2023. Respondent No.2 approached the trial Court
for bail on parity and vide impugned order, she came to be enlarged on bail on
parity and on the ground of prolonged trial and incarceration.
04. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order primarily on the ground that
she was not afforded an opportunity of being heard.
05. The plea has been opposed on the other side by respondent No.2, inter alia
on the grounds that she is 66 years of age and since all material witnesses of the
prosecution, including family members of the deceased stand recorded, her
incarceration will not serve any purpose of the prosecution.
06. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I do not find any illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order for the following reasons.
07. Nobody can take an exception to the settled position of law that though an
extensive assessment of the prosecution evidence and elaborate documentation of
merits of the case is not permissible at the stage of consideration of a bail plea,
however, Court has the power to analyse prosecution evidence for the limited
purpose to formulate a prima facie opinion about availability of reasonable
grounds to believe that whether accused has committed a non-bailable offence or
not.
3
08. Case set out by the prosecution is that when deceased sought permission of
her husband-accused Chander Kant Tiwari to attend Satsang in her parental
house, scuffle took place between them. All the accused persons started beating
the deceased and accused Chander Kant Tiwari-husband of the deceased inflicted
a blow of rod on the head of the deceased due to which she sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot. During investigation, minor son of the deceased and
accused Chander Kant Tiwari stated that his grandmother, the petitioner herein,
threw warm water on his mother and his aunt-accused No.3, Sunita Tiwari had
dragged the deceased.
09. The child witness, who happens to be the sole eye witness to the occurrence
has maintained his stand during the trial. He has stated that at the time of
occurrence, his mother was caught hold by his paternal aunt and his grandmother
threw warm water on his mother. When his mother tried to flee from the spot, his
father inflicted a blow of rod over her head. It is manifest from the statement of
sole eye witness that main allegation is on accused Chander Kant Tiwari, who is
alleged to have dealt a blow of iron rod on the head of his wife-the deceased.
Learned trial Court has rightly observed that entire edifice of the prosecution case
revolves around the statement of child witness PW-1 and rest of the prosecution
witnesses are either heresay or witnesses to the documents. Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, while considering bail plea of co-accused Sunita Tiwari, had rightly
observed that implication of co-accused Sunita Tiwari is by reference to Section
34 IPC only and Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicant has rightly argued that since allegation of causing death of the deceased
rests upon a blow of rod inflicted by the husband of the deceased, petitioner is
entitled to bail on parity because she has also been implicated by reference to
Section 34 IPC.
4
10. The other aspect of the matter which rightly caught attention of the trial
Court is that all material witnesses of the prosecution, including family members
of the deceased and sole eye witness stand examined. Respondent No.2 was
arrested on 16.06.2020 and she came to be enlarged on bail by the trial Court on
23.10.2024 i.e. after about years of incarceration. She is 66 years of age stated to
be suffering with multiple ailments. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are either
hearsay or formal witnesses to the documents and investigating officers and it is
evident from the pace with which the trial is proceeding that examination of
remaining 20 prosecution witnesses is likely to take a considerable time.
Therefore, in view of salutary provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
prosecution or for that matter complainant cannot be allowed to dilute
fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial and personal liberty.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the
lucid and well-reasoned impugned order, by virtue of which respondent No.2
came to be enlarged on bail by the trial Court.
12. Hence, present petition is dismissed and impugned order is upheld.
13. Disposed of accordingly.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
17.04.2026
Riya Kochhar