Delhi court denies bail to woman accused of killing two daughters

A Delhi court has denied bail to a 53-year-old woman accused of murdering her two daughters at their residence in south Delhi’s Malviya Nagar last month.

Observing that the allegations were grave and there was a high risk of the accused influencing a primary witness, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi rejected the bail plea of Sunita Arora, who has been in custody since March 13 in connection with a case registered under Section 103(1) (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

According to the prosecution, police were alerted through a PCR call on March 5 by the woman’s husband, Sudhir Arora, who reported that his wife and two daughters were not responding from inside their locked house.

Upon breaking open the doors, police found the two daughters, 34-year-old Radhika Arora and 28-year-old Gunisha Arora, dead in separate rooms, while Sunita was discovered unconscious but alive.

The prosecution alleged that the deaths were homicidal. Post-mortem findings indicated that Gunisha died due to asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation, while Radhika died due to a combination of strangulation and smothering.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution submitted that the accused was the “prime suspect” and invoked the “last seen together” doctrine, arguing that the incident occurred within a locked house where only the victims and the accused were present.

“It is for the applicant to explain what transpired inside the four walls of the house,” the Additional Public Prosecutor told the court, adding that releasing her at this stage could hamper the investigation and lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court was told that several incriminating items were recovered from the scene, including blood near the sink, a blood-stained broken glass bottle, crepe bandages, a mixer grinder blade, a mortar and pestle with white powder, an open packet of naphthalene balls, and a yellowish liquid on the floor, which the prosecution said indicated a premeditated plan.

The prosecution further argued that, given the severity of the offence, which carries the possibility of death or life imprisonment, there was a risk of the accused evading trial.

The defence counsel, however, argued that the case suffered from “fatal procedural irregularities”, including a delay of over 52 hours in registration of the FIR, which allegedly allowed manipulation of the narrative.

The counsel also raised suspicion around the hasty cremation of the two daughters before registration of the FIR, preventing the accused from attending their last rites, as she was held in pre-FIR custody from March 5.

The defence further claimed that the accused and her daughters were victims of prolonged domestic abuse by the husband. He contended that the case was one of “abetment to suicide driven by sustained cruelty rather than a cold-blooded murder”, citing a complaint alleging physical and mental harassment by the husband and sister-in-law dated November 22, 2025.

The complaint also alleged the younger daughter was harassed for being a member of the LGBTQ community, a claim the prosecution termed to be “character assassination of the dead”.

The defence counsel also argued that the three women were subjected to financial abuse despite the husband’s high income and emphasised the accused’s fragile mental health.

Referring to Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, he submitted that a person who attempts suicide is presumed to be under severe stress and should not be penalised.

Rejecting the contentions, the court, in its April 11 order, noted the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, observing that key forensic reports were still awaited. It found the delay in FIR registration explainable, noting the need for cautious investigation after the three women were found locked inside with no sign of forced entry.

The court also sought details of the accused’s alleged mental illness and whether she was undergoing treatment. On being informed that she was not, the court held that the insanity plea appeared to be an “afterthought”.

“This Court finds that the presumption of law under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 does not come to the rescue of the applicant, Sunita, as it is the admitted case of the applicant that she does not suffer from any mental illness and/or was undergoing treatment and therapy”, read the order.

The court ultimately held that it was not a fit case for the grant of bail at this stage and dismissed the application.