$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1981/2026 SARITA (IN J.C.) .....Applicant Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Kriti Sharma, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate. Mr. Sarthak Karol for Complainant SI Sumit Tomar, PS.: Aman Vihar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No.1242/2014 dated 12.11.2014 registered at PS.: Aman Vihar, Rohini, Delhi under Section 302/365/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. Succinctly put, on 22.10.2014, a missing report qua Brijesh (deceased) was lodged by his father, alleging that the deceased had gone missing after leaving for Agra to bring back his wife i.e., the present applicant. Based thereon, the present FIR under Section 365 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, the applicant was traced at Agra, who, though initially denied having any knowledge of the whereabouts of the deceased, however, subsequently disclosed in her This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:25:13 disclosure statement that she willingly left the company of the deceased and was residing with the co-accused Suraj at Agra. She further disclosed that since the deceased was not happy with the said relationship and was threatening them, she and the co-accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. In furtherance thereof, the applicant lured the deceased to come to Agra, and thereafter, took him to secluded place, where the co-accused Suraj fired at the back of his head with a country made pistol, resulting in his death. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant as also learned APP, who is supported by learned counsel for the complainant. Written synopsis, handed over by the applicant and the complainant, are taken on record. 4. Primarily, it is the case of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is facing prolonged incarceration of around six and half years, and that the trial is taking too long despite lapse of almost eleven years since the framing of charges. Thus, as per her, the same infringe the fundamental right to speedy trial of the applicant. 5. Neither the mere length/ period of incarceration nor the time taken for conclusion of the trial per se can form the sole guiding factor for release of an accused on regular bail, as the other factors like the nature/ gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, the nature of accusation, reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, nature of evidence, the accused having no prior criminal antecedents, the stage of trial/ proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the chances of accused fleeing/ absconding, the chances of witness tampering and/ or being threatened, the nature, character, behaviour, standing of the accused This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:25:13 in the society, the nominal roll received from Jail Authorities showing the conduct of the said inmate when inside jail, possibility of the offence being repeated if released on bail, have all to be given equal weightage as none of them can be ignored. In this connection, this Court finds able support in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi:(2005) 8 SCC 21, Masroor v. State of U.P.:(2009) 14 SCC 286, Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu & Anr.: 2012 (9) SCC 446 and Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi):2026 SCC OnLine SC 10. 6. Further, it cannot be denied that the applicant had earlier abused her liberty whence granted interim bail in the year 2020, inasmuch as she failed to surrender after expiry thereof and was only apprehended as late as on 31.01.2025, that too after having been declared a Proclaimed Offender. Thus, the delay in trial, as sought to be contended by learned counsel, cannot be solely attributed to the prosecution, so as to act as a ford for the applicant to be released on bail. Even also, as per Status Report, the trial is already at its fag end since out of total twenty-seven prosecution witnesses, twenty-one have already been examined. 7. Moreover, it is of relevance that the applicant is named in the FIR and is alleged to have committed murder of her husband pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched with her paramour, and if convicted, she may be sentenced to undergo maximum punishment of life imprisonment or death penalty. Coupled with that there are existence of sufficient material against her, including her own disclosure statement and the recoveries allegedly effected pursuant thereto. 8. Taking a cumulative view of the aforesaid factors, particularly, the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:25:13 apprehension that the applicant may once again evade the due process of law, this Court does not find any justification to release the applicant on regular bail. 9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, since this Court is cognizant of period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, and in view of the decision of this Court in Mr. Himanshu Aliyas Donti v. State of NCT of Delhi: 2026:DHC:3819 wherein it was held that the right of the applicant to speedy trial can be guaranteed by issuing appropriate directions for expeditious trial, it is deemed appropriate to request the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and bring a closure to the proceedings emanating out of FIR No.1242/2014 dated 12.11.2014 registered at PS.: Aman Vihar, Delhi under Section 302/365/201/34 IPC as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 30.05.2027, without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties for any reason whatsoever, unless felt appropriate. 10. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid. 11. Needless to say, observations made on the merits of the matter, if any, are only for the purposes of deciding the present application and shall not be construed as expressions on merits of the matter. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi for information and compliance. SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 21, 2026/bh This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:25:13