$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 5023/2025 FAREENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Singh Sinsinwar with Mr Ravi Kumar, Mr. Mohd Imran with Mr. Mohd Sarfaraz, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Shiv Chopra (DHCLSC) with Mr. Shravan Pandey, Ms. Surbhi Arora and Ms. Shivani Kaushik , Advocates. SI Ajay Sharma, PS Mayur Vihar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 89/2022 for offences punishable under Section 302/201/34 which has culminated in SC No. 466/2022. 3. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2026 has already enlarged the mother of the present applicant namely Nazma, on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, has 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 06/07/2026 at 10:22:42 attempted to draw a distinction from the facts. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and contends that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and Anr.,1 the applicant has to sufficiently establish that he is not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He submits that in the instant case, the allegations are of serious in nature, where, the present applicant has not only instigated the main culprit to kill the deceased Salman, but efforts were also made to destroy evidence. He then contends that bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the case of Brijmani Devi, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant also contends that there is ocular evidence against the applicant as can be seen from PW-1. He has read over the evidence of PW-1. 6. The present bail application is also opposed by learned counsel who appears for the State. She contends that Nazma who has been enlarged on bail is the mother of the main accused and the Court while granting the bail was persuaded by the old age of Nazma. The submission is, therefore, made that the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. While the learned counsel for the respondent are correct in placing reliance on the decision on Brijmani Devi to the extent that the Court while considering a bail application has to strike a balance between the nature of 1 2022 4 SCC 497 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 06/07/2026 at 10:22:42 the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. 9. In the evidence of PW-1, it has come on record that the sister of Heena namely Fareena saw Salman talking with Heena. Fareena, thereafter, called Fardeen i.e., her brother. Fardeen came there along with his friends namely Sameer and Nihal and all of them started beating Salman. It is alleged that Fareena and her mother Nazma exhorted “aaj iska Kaam Tamam Kardo”, and, thereafter, Fardeen took out a knife and stabbed the deceased Salman. 10. Bearing in mind the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration since 18.01.2022 which the applicant has already undertaken, the Court finds that the present applicant is also entitled for the grant of regular bail. The facts and situation of the allegation against the present applicant are almost similar as are against Nazma, who has already been enlarged on bail. 11. With respect to the submissions that the applicant since has destroyed the evidence and may possibly cause impediment in the smooth conducting of trial, appropriate conditions can be imposed to obviate such a situation. It be noted that the applicant is a female of 30 years of age and she undertakes to fully cooperate with the trial. The applicant brother, namely, Fardeen, is already in jail. 12. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant is 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 06/07/2026 at 10:22:42 entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same conditions. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions: a) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court; b) The applicant shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times; c) If the applicant has a passport, she shall surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial court; d) The applicant shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and e) In case of any change in her residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer in writing. 13. Nothing stated in this order shall construe as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 14. This application accordingly stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary action. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 3, 2026/aks 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 06/07/2026 at 10:22:42