Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing 'Shoddy Investigation' and Missing Case Diaries Under BNS

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case, Slams "Shoddy Investigation" and Missing Case Diaries

New Delhi: In a significant order highlighting the importance of procedural sanctity in criminal investigations, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a murder case, citing "extremely unfortunate" and "shoddy investigation" by the police, which included missing case diaries and a blank arrest memo.

The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia granted regular bail to Banti Kumar Mathur, who was accused in a murder case registered under Section 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at PS Harsh Vihar. The court found that severe lapses in the investigation raised enough suspicion to warrant the grant of liberty to the accused.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case began on January 16, 2025, when an unidentified and unconscious man was found in a field in Saboli, Delhi. He was declared brought dead at the hospital, with the postmortem report indicating death due to multiple blunt force injuries.

The investigation led police to a co-accused, Vikas, who was identified from CCTV footage of an assault that occurred a day earlier in Loni, U.P. Vikas's confessional statement implicated the applicant, Banti Kumar Mathur, leading to his arrest on February 28, 2025.

---

Prosecution's Arguments and Court's Scrutiny

The State, represented by APP Ms. Manjeet Arya, vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution relied on three key pieces of evidence:

1. The confessional statement of the co-accused.

2. CCTV footage allegedly showing the applicant's involvement.

3. Statements from two eyewitnesses, Prashant Gupta and Dev Gupta, recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

However, upon careful examination, the court found significant weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence.

• Eyewitness Statements: Justice Kathpalia noted that the statements under Section 183 BNSS did not explain the delay in reporting the incident to the police and only "loosely" mentioned the applicant's name.
• CCTV Footage: The court observed that after the footage was played in the courtroom, it was "not possible to clearly identify the accused/applicant from the same." The judgment added that the person identified by the IO as the applicant was "simply a member of the crowd following 2-3 persons, pulling away one injured."

---

Pivotal Judgment Excerpts: The "Missing" Case Diaries

The most critical part of the judgment dealt with severe procedural irregularities that cast a shadow over the entire investigation. The court found that the column for "reasons of arrest" in the applicant's arrest memo was left blank.

The Investigating Officer (IO) claimed that the grounds of arrest were provided separately and that this was recorded in the Case Diary, which was initialled by the Magistrate. However, the court's scrutiny revealed a disturbing picture.

"On a careful scrutiny, it is noticed that only this Case Diary bears an initial... but there is no name/stamp and Case Diary of no other date bears initials of the learned magistrate. More importantly, it is noticed that Case Diaries are till Diary No.19 dated 27.02.2025 and thereafter the next Case Diary is numbered 39 dated 28.02.2025 and thereafter, the Case Diaries numbers are 42, and then 44 onwards."

When questioned about the missing diary entries, the IO gave an alarming response. The court recorded:

"On being asked about the missing Case Diaries, the IO states that those Case Diaries 'might have got destroyed or removed'. This completely takes away sanctity of not just these Case Diaries but also raises suspicion against genuineness of the investigation. It is extremely unfortunate that even in a murder case such shoddy investigation has been carried out."

---

Final Decision and Implications

Citing the cumulative effect of the weak evidence and the highly suspicious investigative lapses, the court concluded that there was no reason to deny liberty to the applicant.

The judgment stated, "Considering the overall circumstances mentioned above, I find no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant."

Banti Kumar Mathur was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount. This order serves as a stark reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of maintaining procedural integrity and proper documentation, especially in grave offences like murder, and reinforces that the fundamental right to liberty cannot be curtailed based on a tainted and suspicious investigation.