Nilofar Bee vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail relating to Crime No.440/2024 registered at Police Station - Neelganga, District - Ujjain (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2), 249, 306 of BNS and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.The applicant is in custody since 11.10.2024. Her first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 29.07.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 24705/2025.

As per the case of prosecution, Guddu @ Kalim S/o Vazir Kha aged 60 years was found dead at his home in the morning of 11.10.2024. Asif informed Inspector V.S. Kanodiya of PS- Neelganga that he was sleeping at home with family. Around 4:30 in the morning, he heard fire of gun shot, so he came out of his room. He saw Shakila and Rukhsana running toward the gate. He went to the room of his uncle Guddu @ Kalim. Guddu was lying dead on his bed. There was gun shot on his head. Nilophar(applicant), wife of Guddu was standing there. Guddu @ Kalim had property dispute with his wife Nilophar and sons Asif @ Mintu and Danish. He suspects that Guddu is killed by his wife and sons. PS- Neelganga, Ujjain registered FIR for the offence punishable under sections 103(1) of BNS, 2023. During investigation, it was revealed that Danish and Mintu @ Asif had conspiracy to kill their father Guddu in association with Soharab Sheikh and his associate Abhishekh @ Imran. In further of the conspiracy, Mintu @ Asif provided a double barrel gun to Soharab. Soharab and Danish entered the room of Guddu. Danish fired gun shot at head of Guddu. Guddu died on spot. Soharab and Danish ran away. A double barrel gun was recovered at the instance of Soharab. Later, present applicant informed that he had procured the gun from driver Javed @ Bhayya. Javed was apprehended and he informed that he had purchased the gun from Burhanuddin S/o Jahid Ali Bohra. It was revealed from the statement of Jahid Ali and Anil S/o Rajkumar that the double barrel gun, allegedly used in the offence, belongs to Anil S/o Rajkumar, who had deposited the gun at the shop of Jahid Ali for repairs. Burhanuddin, in absence of Jahid Ali, sold the gun to Javed @ Bhayya. Accordingly, case has been registered against the present application alleging murder of her husband in connivance with her sons -Aashif Khan alias Mintu and Danish. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is under custody since 11.10.2024. The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. Co-accused Nasir Khan, Burhanuddin , Jafar Khan Aashif Khan alias Mintu and Javed have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench in M.Cr.C. No(s).3405/2025, 2652/2025, 4321/2025, 60019/2025 and 4412/2026 respectively. Only 06 prosecution witnesses out of 63 enlisted prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court till date. The prosecution witnesses so examined have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.The applicant is in custody since the last about two years. Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time. The applicant is permanent resident of District - Ujjain (M.P) and there is no possibility of her absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity of co-accused Aashif Khan alias Mintu and also on the ground of prolonged detention due to delayed trial.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

It is well settled that the right to speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 . The Apex Court in the matter of Hussainara Khaton V State of Bihar, 19801 SCC 81 and subsequent decisions has repeatedly emphasized that detention beyond reasonable period without conclusion of trial is unconstitutional.

Further, the Apex Court in the matter of K.A. Najeeb v Union of India, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has held that prolonged pre-trial detention is by itself a ground to grant bail, notwithstanding the seriousness of allegations, particularly, when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Considering the fact that applicant is in custody since last about two years and only six prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court till date and in the light of aforementioned propositions of law, so also on the ground of parity, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court/ Remand duty Magistrate.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.