Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Vijay – Appellant
Versus
State (Through NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 630 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the brutal beating and subsequent death of a man, allegedly involving the petitioner and others. The prosecution's case was based on video evidence, mobile phone data, and the statement of a co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner was weak and inconclusive, with no direct evidence placing the petitioner at the scene of the crime. The court also considered the petitioner's clean antecedents and conduct in jail, concluding that there was no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice or obstructing the course of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the strength of the evidence against the petitioner, the admissibility of the co-accused's statement, and the principles governing the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage, the need to secure the presence of the accused during trial, and the consideration of delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial. The court also highlighted the principles governing the grant of bail, including the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to specific conditions to ensure his availability during trial and to prevent any potential interference with the case.
JUDGMENT Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0074/2020 under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC registered at P.S. Ghazipur.
2. Vide order dated 22.02.2022, notice was issued in the bail application of the petitioner and the State was directed to file a Status Report.
3. The State has filed the Status Report dated 18.04.2022 which is on record.
4. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Raj Kumar was providing home tuitions to one woman named Jyoti. The husband of Jyoti namely Sachin had seen Raj Kumar with Jyoti and thereafter he picked a quarrel with the deceased many times. On 09.03.2020, the deceased was called by Jyoti to Flat No. 313 Ashirwad Apartment, where the petitioner herein was also present inside the flat. When the deceased entered the flat, the husband of Jyoti i.e. Sachin along with petitioner's friend Akash also reached there and they all brutally beat up the deceased. They also made videos from their mobile phones. After the beating, they took the deceased Raj Kumar in Sachin's car and dumped him on the other side of the main gate of Ashirwad Apartment from where witness Deepak took him to the hospital.
5. On the basis of a complaint made by the brother of the deceased, the FIR was registered and accused persons namely Jyoti, her husband Sachin, the present petitioner and Akash were arrested.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2020 by the police and since then he is in judicial custody. He submits that mobile phones of accused Jyoti, Sachin, deceased Raj Kumar as well as that of the present petitioner were seized and sent to FSL for examination.
7. Inviting attention of the court to the Status Report, he contends that the data which was recovered from the mobile phone of the accused persons was examined by FSL and the report reveals that 02 videos of beating of deceased Raj Kumar could be retrieved from the mobile of accused Sachin. In the said video clippings, only the deceased is seen and the face of no other accused is visible. However, some voices could also be heard.
8. He submits that in order to identify the voices in the clipping, voice samples of accused persons namely, Sachin, Vijay, Akash and Jyoti were taken at FSL, Rohini with prior permission of the Court and the same were compared with the voices heard in the video clipping.
9. After comparison of voice samples, the expert has opined that the voice sample of accused Sachin and Jyoti matched with the voice in the video recording. However, with regard to the present petitioner and Akash, no definite opinion was expressed by the expert. He only opined - 'the possible voice same person'. The learned counsel submits that in the absence of a definite opinion of the expert, the FSL report cannot be relied upon.
10. He further submits that no ocular evidence is available in the case. The other incriminating material/circumstances alleged against the petitioner is that - (i) co-accused Sachin stated in his disclosure statement that the petitioner was also present there, and (ii) the mobile location/CDR shows that the petitioner was either at Ashirwad Apartment or in its vicinity.
11. The learned counsel relies on the decision of this court in Rajesh Sharma Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018 SCC Online Delhi 12372, to contend that the statement of co-accused can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and conviction cannot be based solely on the statement of co-accused. He further contends that in the absence of substantive evidence, the statement of co- accused Sachin does not serve any purpose and the same cannot be relied upon.
12. In so far as the location of the petitioner's mobile is concerned, he submits that the distance between the place of incident i.e. Ashirwad Apartment and the residence of the petitioner is 100 Meters, therefore, it is not unusual f
The presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need to secure the presence of the accused during trial are key legal principles established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence and the need to secure the presence of the accused during trial when considering a bail application.
Under Section 439 CrPC, prolonged pre-trial custody, lack of direct evidence, and the presumption of innocence support the grant of bail, especially when co-accused have been released.
The presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence are crucial legal principles established in the judgm....
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
Serious allegations of homicide justify denial of bail; the court must exercise discretion cautiously, considering evidence and potential risks including witness tampering.
Point of Law : The aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to the incident and to victims is of utmost importance. High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a ....
The seriousness of the offence is not the sole consideration for deciding bail, and the object of judicial custody is to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
