The Delhi High Court has grants bail for a murder suspect involved in a tragic incident where he, along with the victim, made a suicide pact. This occurred subsequent to his coerced marriage to another woman by his family back in 2016.

The bench headed by Justice Vikas Mahajan found merit in the submission made by the counsel representing the accused that after the suicide pact, According to the submission, during the suicide pact, the woman managed to end her life while the man was spared because his homemade pistol failed to discharge.

The Court highlighted that in assessing the petitioner's bail application, the potential scenario of a consensual romantic involvement between the petitioner and the deceased, leading to a suicide pact where the deceased shot herself, cannot be ruled out.

The Court additionally emphasized that the forensic report explicitly confirmed the functionality of the homemade pistol. However, it was highlighted that despite multiple attempts, the cartridge retrieved from the accused did not discharge despite the pistol being in operational condition.

As per the case details, on May 10, 2016, the police received information from the accused indicating his intent to commit suicide and claiming that the woman accompanying him had shot herself. Subsequently, authorities discovered the accused in the driver's seat of a car, with the victim deceased in the passenger's seat. Investigations unveiled a longstanding relationship between the victim and accused spanning several years.

Notably, the victim, a married woman with children, was involved with the accused, who himself was married to another woman. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered her after she declined to end their relationship. However, following a thorough review of submissions and evidence, the Court acknowledged the assertion that the accused and victim had a harmonious relationship, further noting that their families were acquainted with each other.

The Court dismissed the prosecution's argument suggesting that the victim and her husband had lent money to the accused, which he allegedly failed to repay. This decision was based on a recorded conversation where the accused and his mother reportedly agreed to return the borrowed sum. Ultimately, the Court stated that the testimonies presented by the prosecution witnesses and other evidence significantly favored granting bail to the accused. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that despite 64 witnesses being listed, only 24 had been examined over the course of the past seven years during the trial. Consequently, the Court concluded that keeping the accused in custody would not serve any meaningful purpose.