Woman Accused in Husband’s Murder Granted Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cites Delay in FIR and Lack of Direct Evidence

Case Name: Seema Saini v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026

Citation: CRM-M-25523-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused of conspiring in the murder of her husband, observing that the FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, there was no postmortem or medical evidence establishing the cause of death, and the prosecution case largely relied on telephonic conversations. The Court also extended the benefit of special consideration for women under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 CrPC) in a case arising from FIR No. 262 dated 20.09.2024 registered at Police Station Chachrauli, District Yamuna Nagar under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120-B IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Seema Saini, along with co-accused Anil Kumar, had conspired to murder her husband Pardeep Kumar.

Pardeep Kumar had died on 06.08.2022 at his home. However, no suspicion was raised at the time and neither a medico-legal examination nor a postmortem was conducted. Nearly one year and ten months later, the deceased’s brother Rajesh Kumar filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had frequent telephonic conversations with co-accused Anil Kumar, leading to suspicion that they had jointly planned the killing. Based on this complaint, the FIR was registered on 20.09.2024.

The petitioner argued that the prosecution case was entirely speculative and built on suspicion. There was no medical evidence regarding the cause of death, no postmortem report, and no recovery of weapon or incriminating material from her possession. The prosecution relied primarily on call detail records showing around 30 calls between the petitioner and the co-accused between 01.07.2022 and 06.08.2022.

It was also pointed out that the complainant had already been examined during trial and that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than one year and three months. Being a woman, she sought the benefit of the special provision under Section 480 BNSS, which permits release on bail for certain categories including women.

The State and the complainant opposed the bail plea, contending that the call records indicated a strong connection between the petitioner and co-accused Anil Kumar. It was also argued that tablets of Diphenoxylate were recovered from the co-accused and that both accused had administered poison to their respective spouses in order to continue an alleged illicit relationship.

After examining the record, the Court noted that the FIR had been lodged after a substantial delay following the death of the deceased. At the time of death, no suspicion was expressed by any family member and no postmortem examination was conducted. The Court observed that determining whether an illicit relationship existed between the petitioner and the co-accused was a matter to be decided during trial and could not be conclusively examined at the stage of bail.

The Court further held that it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner in prolonged custody merely on the basis of telephonic conversation records, especially when the cause of death had not been medically established and no direct incriminating evidence had been recovered from her.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had already remained in custody for over one year, was not involved in any other criminal case, and the complainant had already been examined, thereby reducing the possibility of evidence being influenced.

Taking into account these factors along with the statutory consideration for women under Section 480 BNSS, the Court concluded that continued incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose at that stage of trial.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court also directed that the petitioner shall not threaten or influence any prosecution witness and clarified that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the trial.