Back
2005 Supreme(Del) 656
High Court Of Delhi
VINOD - Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT DELHI - Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION : 1436 of 2005
Decided On : 05/30/2005
JITENDER SETHI, M.N.DUDEJA, PRASHAN TIVARI
The lack of evidence linking the accused to the offences and key prosecution witnesses turning hostile can influence the grant of bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - Grant of bail to husband and mother-in-law of deceased - The court considered the lack of evidence linking the petitioners to the offences and the fact that key prosecution witnesses turned hostile, leading to the grant of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, sought bail. Key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence linking the petitioners to the offences and that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, leading to the grant of bail.
Issues: Grant of bail to the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: Lack of evidence linking the petitioners to the offences and key prosecution witnesses turning hostile influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and sureties.
( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased Poonam. The other three co-accused have all been granted bail. The father-in- law of the deceased and the bother-in-law of the deceased were granted bail by separate orders passed by this court on 11. 02. 2005. One of the main circumstances which weighed with this court while allowing the bail applications of the aforesaid two persons was that they had resided separately from the matrimonial home of the deceased and her husband (Vinod ). Insofar as the petitioner No. 2, that is the mother-in-law, is concerned, she would naturally be residing with the father-in-law. It would straightaway be considered appropriate to grant bail to her also. However, so far as the petitioner No. 1 (Vinod) is concerned, since he was residing with the deceased, the question requires further consideration. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain events unfolded after the passing of the order dated 11. 02. 2005 and they are that the father, mother and brother of the deceased have been examined in court as PW2, PW3 and PW4 and all of them have not supported the prosecution case. In fact, they have made categorical statements that there was no harassment on the part of the accused and they do not know the reason as to why Poonam died. They were all declared hostile. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a very material circumstance which needs to be considered for the grant of bail to the present petitioners including Vinod (husband of the deceased ).
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the State could not deny the fact that the three prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW4 had, in fact, turned hostile and they had not at all supported the prosecution case. There is no evidence to link the present petitioners with the offences for which they have been implicated.
( 3 ) AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I direct that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The application stands disposed of.
--- *** ---
.
