Hostility of material prosecution witnesses and lack of criminal antecedents justify grant of regular bail.

The applicant, Pooja, was arrested on August 16, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 327/2025 for the alleged murder of her two minor daughters, Uma and Anishka, by pelting stones at them.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was seen shouting that she had killed her daughters.

This is the applicant's second bail application after the first was withdrawn on January 23, 2026.

During the ongoing trial, six material prosecution witnesses were examined, including eye-witnesses Manisha (PW-1) and Seema (PW-6), and witnesses Ashok (PW-3) and Seema (PW-6), none of whom supported the prosecution’s accusations.

The applicant, a 26-year-old homemaker, has been in judicial custody since her arrest.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The underlying offense is governed by Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which prescribes punishment for murder.

The court further relied on established bail jurisprudence regarding the socio-economic status of the accused, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the lack of a prima facie likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The court analyzed the merit of the application by weighing the gravity of the offense against the current evidentiary status of the trial.

It observed that although the allegations involve the murder of two children, the material prosecution witnesses—specifically the eye-witnesses—failed to support the state's case during examination.

The court noted that the applicant is a young homemaker with a surviving minor child and no prior criminal record.

It reasoned that since the primary witnesses have already been examined and did not support the prosecution, there is little risk of the applicant tampering with the remaining formal evidence or influencing the trial.

The court concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted as the applicant's family roots and clean past suggested no risk of recidivism or absconding.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must attend all hearing dates, refrain from committing similar offenses, and not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

The trial court was directed to cancel bail in the event of any breach of these conditions.