Read Time: 05 minutes

The Delhi High Court Single Bench Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, refused to grant bail to the petitioner, observing that electronic evidence, coupled with the recoveries made, does not persuade this Court to keep a lenient view towards serious allegations against the petitioner for hatching a conspiracy to eliminate her husband. 

In the present case, the charge-sheet is said to have been filed and Charges are yet to be framed.

The petitioner had sought regular bail purely on humanitarian grounds, as there is no one to take care of her three minor children, aged 13 years, 09 years and 06 years. 

It was submitted that after petitioner’s arrest, one of her daughter became a victim of sexual harassment, in relation to which FIR No. 460/2020, u/s 354A IPC r/w Section 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered at police station New Usmanpur, Distt. North East, Delhi. 

It was further submitted that another daughter of petitioner is suffering from brain injury, as one of the bone in her brain is cracked and she is under continuous treatment and is presently in the custody of Anju Jain, her sister-in-law (nanad) and Manoj Jain, brother-in-law (nandoi), who are not taking her for a regular consultation and treatment.

The court however found that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She is the key conspirator of murder of her own husband. 

As per prosecution, CCTV footage shows that petitioner along with other accused persons hatched a conspiracy to murder her husband, which is corroborated with the disclosure statements of accused - Rahul Jain and Vijay Kumar. The visiting register of hotel Glance-Inn, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi records petitioner and accused Rahul Jain as husband and wife.

The key of the house of petitioner was recovered from Rahul Jain and another key was recovered from the petitioner and both the keys are identical as per FSL report. The piece of hand glove seized from the crime scene and another at the instance of Vijay Kumar, also match as per FSL report. 

The call detail record of accused persons collected and analyzed shows they were in contact just before and after the commission of crime. In addition, as per call detail record, there are 22 telephonic conversations between Rahul Jain and Vijay Kumar and 26 telephonic conversations between petitioner and Rahul Jain on the day of the incident. 

Case Title: Preeti Jain vs State [BAIL APPLN. 1104/2021 & Crl.M.A. 5354/2021 & Crl.M.(B) 362/2021]