BAIL APPLN./4008/2026 of PRIYA KUMARI @ PRIYANKA Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

%

23.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 29659/2026 (for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

3. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking the following relief: - “a) Release the Applicant/Accused, Priya Kumari @ Priyanka, on regular bail in FIR No. 75/2023, P.S. Madhu Vihar, U/s 302/323/201/34 IPC, subject to conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;”

4. FIR No. 75/2023 registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar under Sections 302/323/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’], arises out of the death of Tara Singh during an alleged assault on 10.03.2023. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused, attacked the deceased and his wife in a planned manner, resulting in the deceased’s death.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2023 and has remained in custody since 12.03.2023, while the chargesheet was filed on 08.06.2023.

6. Her earlier regular bail application was dismissed on 06.06.2026 by the learned ASJ-05, Karkardooma Courts [‘Trial Court’] primarily on the ground that public witnesses were yet to be examined and apprehension of witness intimidation.

7. This Court has perused the order dated 06.06.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, more specifically, the observations recorded at paragraph ‘6’, which reads as under: - “This Court finds that in the authority cited, the case was dependent on circumstantial evidence and there was no eye-witness. The limited role of the accused in that case was that she was involved in the conspiracy to commit murder along with her paramour. However, in the present case, the footage shows that the applicant was carrying a sword even before she was attacked, hinting at pre-meditation. She is also seen having an active role in the actual assault of the deceased and is seen physically attacking him. It is too early in the day to comment upon the merits of the case. However, it is noteworthy that public witnesses are yet to be examined. Since, the applicant and the witnesses are residents of the same vicinity, threatening of witnesses cannot be ruled in case the applicant is released from custody. Evidence of public witnesses in this matter could not be recorded as the Court was lying vacant for several months. The applicant cannot take advantage of this. The Court appreciates the meticulous arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. However, for reasons given above.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there are four (4) eye witnesses listed in the chargesheet.

9. Learned APP states, on instructions from the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’), that the matter is next listed before the Trial Court on 20.11.2026 and he will take all steps to ensure that the testimony of the said witnesses is recorded in a time bound manner.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition and to approach the Trial Court afresh for seeking bail after the testimony of the four (4) witnesses is completed.

11. The I.O. is directed to ensure that the witnesses remain present before the Trial Court, as per its directions for recording their testimony so as to ensure timely progress of the trial.

12. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.

13. Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner as prayed for.

14. Pending applications, if any, disposed of. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/rhc/AM