Bail Granted in Murder Case U/S 302 IPC as Evidence Linking Applicant to Recovered Weapon Found Untenable: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-26

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case, Cites Insufficient Evidence and Procedural Lapses

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, has granted regular bail to Samir @ Azhar, an accused in a 2022 murder case, citing significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence and criticizing the investigating officer for procedural shortcomings. The court found that the evidence connecting the applicant to the crime was unsubstantiated, warranting his release after prolonged incarceration since December 2022.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from FIR No. 753/2022, registered at PS Welcome, under Sections 302 (Murder), 212 (Harbouring offender), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, on December 1, 2022, the deceased, Nabeel, was shot and killed. His brother, the complainant, identified two individuals, Kamran and Saifu, as the shooters. Nabeel, in a dying declaration to his brother, also named the same individuals. The applicant, Samir @ Azhar, was not named in the initial FIR but was later implicated on the grounds that he had supplied the arms and ammunition used in the offence. He was arrested on December 10, 2022, and has been in custody since.

---

Arguments in Court

• Applicant's Plea: Counsel for Samir @ Azhar argued that he was falsely implicated, highlighting that his name was absent from the FIR. They pointed to the extended period of his custody (since 2022) and the fact that charges in the case are yet to be framed, despite the chargesheet having been filed.

• State's Opposition: The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the murder charge. They contended that the applicant played a crucial role by supplying the weapons to the alleged killers and therefore should not be granted bail.

---

Court's Scrutiny and Observations

Justice Girish Kathpalia's judgment focused critically on the quality and nature of the evidence presented against the applicant. The court was particularly displeased with the Investigating Officer (IO), who appeared in court without the original police file or case diaries.

"To begin with, it is strongly deprecated that in order to oppose the liberty of an individual, the Investigating Officer has appeared without the original police file or Case Diaries. It is the Case Diary which is authentication of the investigation."

The pivotal evidence against the applicant was the alleged recovery of arms and ammunition, which the prosecution claimed was based on the disclosure statements of the main accused, Kasim and Kamran. However, the court identified several critical flaws in this evidence:

1. Lack of Connection to Property: The recovery was made from a house where the applicant allegedly resided, but the IO admitted there was no evidence, such as ownership documents or a rent agreement, to prove he lived there.
2. Procedural Failures: The court noted that no notice was given to the owner or any occupant of the house before the search and recovery were conducted, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the procedure.

The judgment underscored that the sole link connecting the applicant to the crime was the recovery of weapons from a location he could not be proven to occupy.

---

Final Decision and Implications

Citing the unsubstantiated nature of the evidence and the applicant's prolonged incarceration since 2022, the court concluded that it was not a fit case to further deprive him of his liberty.

"Considering the above circumstances coupled with the incarceration of the accused/applicant since the year 2022 and the stage of the proceedings before the trial court, I do not find it a fit case to further deprive the accused/applicant liberty."

The court allowed the bail application, directing the release of Samir @ Azhar upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal liberty against unsubstantiated allegations and procedural lapses during investigation.