JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral):- Petitioner seeks the benefit of regular bail in case F.I.R. No.51dated 29.3.2016 under sections 302, 454, 380, 411, 120-B I.P.C, registeredat Police Station, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 3. Briefly it may be noticed FIR came to be registered on thestatement of Kuldeep Singh son of Kartar Singh. Deceased are SantoshKaur and Sukhdev Singh i.e. real sister and brother-in-law respectively ofthe complainant. Present petitioner is the daughter-in-law of deceasedSantosh Kaur. 4. As per statement of complainant Kuldeep Singh, he hadreceived a telephonic call on 28.3.2016 from his other sister namely VijayKumari that she had gone to the house of Santosh Kaur and had discoveredSantosh Kaur as also her husband Sukhdev Singh immobile and notresponding. There upon the complainant along with his wife Manjit Kaurhad also proceeded to the spot and discovered the bodies of Santosh Kaurand Sukhdev Singh. There were no external marks of injury noticed on thebodies. Initial statement of complainant is that the death of both sister andbrother-in-law appeared to be unnatural and accordingly postmortem of thedead bodies be got done and reason of death be ascertained. Complainant,however, stated that he had no suspicion over anybody. The bodies werediscovered on 28.3.2016. 5. The present petitioner, who was otherwise residing in Australiais stated to have come back to India on the following day i.e. on 29.3.2016when the cremation took place. 6. It has gone uncontroverted that as per Post Mortem Reportfurnished by the Medical Board the cause of death of both Santosh Kaur andSukhdev Singh was given as asphyxia and by way of smothering. 7. It so transpires that the present petitioner is sought to beimplicated on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded of Smt. VijayKumari i.e. sister of deceased Santosh Kaur recorded under section 161Cr.P.C on 26.4.2016. Such supplementary statement has been placed onrecord at Annexure P-5 and has been perused. As per contents thereof thepresent petitioner is alleged to have made confessional statement beforeVijay Kumari stating that she was in an illicit relationship with JasjeetSingh i.e. son-in-law of Vijay Kumari and which fact had come in theknowledge of both the deceased. As per confessional statement SantoshKaur and Sukhdev Singh i.e. in-laws of the petitioner were got murderedfrom Jasjeet Singh and his friends Ajay Kumar and Maninder Singh. Eventhe gold ornaments were stated to have been stolen. As per confessional statement SantoshKaur and Sukhdev Singh i.e. in-laws of the petitioner were got murderedfrom Jasjeet Singh and his friends Ajay Kumar and Maninder Singh. Eventhe gold ornaments were stated to have been stolen. Furthermore, as persupplementary statement certain messages exchanged between the presentpetitioner and Jasjeet Singh had also come in the knowledge of husband ofthe petitioner and it is under such circumstances that the confessionalstatement had been made before Vijay Kumari pleading for help in thematter. 8. Petitioner was arrested on 26.4.2016. 9. Investigation in the case is complete, challan presented andcharges framed. 10. Learned State counsel upon instructions from H.C. GurmeetSingh apprises the Court that out of 36 prosecution witnesses cited, 3 havebeen examined till date. The trial, as such, would take time to conclude. 11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. 12. The main accused in the case would be seen as Jasjeet Singh.Even as per prosecution version the role of the present petitioner is that of aconspirator and has been booked with the aid of section 120-B I.P.C. 13. It may also be noticed that even though, prosecution is relyingupon certain data extracted from the mobile phone recovered of mainaccused Jasjeet Singh which reflects certain Whats App having beenreceived on his phone from the present petitioner, yet, at the same time asper challan the mobile phone make ‘Lenovo A-6000’ of the petitioner whichhad also been recovered, was sent to the F.S.L but as per report Ex.2 datacould not be extracted from the mobile phone. However, data from theMicro S.D Card of such phone was extracted and a soft copy of the data wasprovided but which does not corroborate the Whats App messagescontained in the phone recovered from Jasjeet Singh. In any event it is amatter to be considered by the Trial Court. 14. In the totality of circumstances, without making anyobservations on merits and keeping in view the length of incarcerationalready suffered by the petitioner, she is held entitled to the benefit of bail.Petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to satisfaction of Trial Court/DutyMagistrate, Hoshiarpur. 15. Petition disposed of.