JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. - Petitioner is seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.1803 dated 15.09.2019 under Sections 323/328/376/506/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that petitioner/accused is a widow and real sister of prosecutrix. The allegation qua the petitioner is that at the time of occurrence, she was in a consensual relationship with her boy friend, who is the prime accused of committing an offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the prime accused took advantage of the prosecutrix being alone at the relevant time and gave her some sedative pills. When she got unconscious, committed the alleged offence, leading to registration of FIR and his arrest subsequently. 3. Initially the role attributed to the petitioner was that when the prosecutrix complained about the incident to her sister (petitioner herein), instead of helping the prosecutrix, she on the contrary threatened her with dire consequences if she takes any legal recourse either qua the petitioner or the prime accused (her boy friend). However, later on while recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix alleged that her sister (petitioner herein) was the one who gave her sedative pills though, she was not present at the time of occurrence. After giving her the sedative pills, the petitioner is stated to have gone out, as she works as a house maid in the neighbourhood houses. Both the petitioner and the prime accused were arrested on 15.09.2019 and are stated to be in custody till date. 4. On a query of the Court, learned State counsel does not controvert that investigation in the case is complete. Challan has already been filed. Prime accused is also in custody. The petitioner works as a house maid and was not present at the scene of occurrence when the offence took place. The trial is yet to commence as the same is held up due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Courts are working in restricted manner and only taking up urgent matters and evidence matters are not being taken up. 5. In the premise, given that the petitioner is real sister of the prosecutrix and was not even present at the scene of occurrence, it seems rather doubtful, at this stage, that she would be a perpetrator in the heinous crime of making the prosecutrix a rape victim by sedating her. 5. In the premise, given that the petitioner is real sister of the prosecutrix and was not even present at the scene of occurrence, it seems rather doubtful, at this stage, that she would be a perpetrator in the heinous crime of making the prosecutrix a rape victim by sedating her. Further more, it transpires that the petitioner being a widow, is the single parent of her two minor children (one boy and one girl) aged 08 years and 05 years, respectively. She being in custody, there is no one to look after the minor children who are exposed to the probability of being affected with the Covid-19 virus. It has been medically proven that children of that age are more susceptible to get infected due to their lower level of immunity and therefore, they need 24x7 constant care and attention. 6. As regards allegations qua the petitioner, the same can only be adjudicated in the course of trial. Admittedly, the trial is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon due to Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner has already been in custody for more than a year. It does not seem to be case a case where further preventive custody is needed. 7. In the premise, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.