Section 437 CrPC: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Woman Accused in Brother-in-Law’s Murder Conspiracy

The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a woman accused of conspiring to murder her brother-in-law over a property dispute, holding that the absence of any specific role attributed to her in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the victim’s body, coupled with her being a woman and mother of three minor children, weighed in her favour.

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan said the latter circumstance assumed significance in view of the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], which contemplates the concession of bail to a woman even in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC allows courts to consider bail for an accused who is under 16, a woman, sick or infirm, even where the alleged offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment. 

Case background

Court was dealing with the bail plea filed by one Sunita in a case arising from an FIR registered at K N Katju Marg police station in Rohini under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 103 and Section 238 of the BNS, respectively). The FIR was registered on October 5, 2023, after police received a call about a body lying at a water treatment plant in Haiderpur.

According to the prosecution, one Amit’s decomposed body was found in a canal with his hands and legs tied and material wrapped around his neck. He was subsequently identified as a resident of Khadlana village in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

The prosecution alleged that the murder stemmed from a dispute between Amit and his brother Sunil over possession of a house in their village. Sunil, who was living in Panipat with his wife Sunita and their children, allegedly wanted to return to the village, but Amit refused to vacate the house.

The prosecution case was that the accused assembled at Sunil’s residence on October 1, 2023, planned the murder and travelled to Khadlana in a tempo. CCTV footage allegedly showed the vehicle being refuelled with CNG. Amit was then allegedly taken towards the Western Yamuna Canal, where he was restrained and strangulated before his body was thrown into the canal.

The chargesheet subsequently invoked Sections 120-B and 34 IPC [corresponding to Section 61 and Section 3(5) of the BNS, respectively]. Charges were framed against Sunita, Sunil, Mohit and Vishu, while another accused, Chand Sachdeva, remained absconding. The trial is presently underway, with six of the 33 prosecution witnesses examined so far.

Bail allowed

Court found that the material relied upon by the prosecution against Sunita was limited primarily to CCTV footage from a CNG station and a supplementary statement made by co-accused Sunil.

Sunita’s counsel, Advocate Lewish Edward, argued that she had not been named by Vikas in his Section 164 of the CrPC (now Section 183 of the BNSS) statement. He also submitted that Sunil did not name her in his initial statement of October 10, 2023, and that her name appeared only in a supplementary statement recorded the next day. He further pointed to the absence of CDR material placing her at or around the alleged crime scene.

The prosecution opposed bail through Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, arguing that Sunita was visible in CCTV footage and that material collected during investigation connected her to the conspiracy. It also pointed out that important witnesses were yet to be examined.

But Justice Jalan observed that Sunita was not named in Sunil’s earlier statement or in the alleged extra-judicial confession made by Vishu. Importantly, the court said, “no specific role in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the body” was prima facie attributed to her.

Court also noted that there was no CDR material relied upon by the prosecution that prima facie placed her at or near the alleged place of occurrence.

Sunita had been in custody for over two years and eight months. Court additionally considered that she is a woman, the mother of three minor children and has no previous criminal antecedents.

The high court ordered her release on a Rs 35,000 personal bond and one surety of the same amount. Court further ordered that she must attend every hearing, keep her mobile number operational, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and cannot leave the country without the trial court’s permission.

Court clarified that its findings were only for deciding the bail application and would neither influence the trial nor amount to an opinion on the merits of the case.

Case title: Sunita v. State of NCT of Delhi

Order date: September 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan