SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Jaleesh @ Jaleesh Ahmed Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2596 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Varun Goswami, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP, for the State with SI Dilip Kumar Gautam, P.S. Shastri Park.

The gravity of the offense and the evidence presented are crucial factors in determining whether bail should be granted in a criminal case.

Headnote:

BAIL APPLICATION - Regular Bail - The court dismissed the bail application of the accused/applicant who was charged with serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court considered the gravity of the offense and found no ground for bail.

Fact of the Case:

The accused/applicant was arrested for offenses under Sections 302/341/451/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, related to the beating and subsequent death of the deceased who was a tenant of the applicant. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, had beaten the deceased after he refused to vacate the rented premises and pay rent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature, supported by CCTV footage and the post-mortem report, which indicated that the injuries suffered by the deceased were anti-mortem in nature. The court considered the gravity of the offense and concluded that no ground for bail was made out.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be granted regular bail considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offense, the evidence presented, and the observation that the charge-sheet pointed towards the commission of the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application of the accused/applicant, clarifying that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. 20768-69/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2596/2023

3. The instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking grant of regular bail in FIR bearing no. 358/2022, registered at Police Station Shastri Park, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 302/341/451/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

4. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present accused/applicant was arrested on 24.03.2022 on the allegations that on 24.03.2022 at about 09:30 AM, an altercation had taken place between the deceased and the present applicant. The deceased was tenant of the applicant. The statement of complainant/wife of the deceased was recorded wherein she had alleged that her deceased husband was brutally beaten up by the applicant. During investigation, it transpired that the applicant along with co-accused had come to the rented accommodation of the deceased and had threatened him to vacate the premises immediately. However, when he had told them that he did not have an alternative accommodation, they had beaten him. When had had gone out of his home to save himself, the present applicant and the co-accused had chased him, had thrown him on the road and had beaten him. The complainant/wife of the deceased had tried to save the deceased, however, they had continued to beat him. To save herself and her minor children, she had locked herself after running back to her home and later when she had come to the spot with her children where the applicant and co-accused were beating the deceased, she could not find her husband and came to know that he had been taken to the hospital. Later, she was informed that her husband had passed away.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the present accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also argued that the deceased had not died due to injuries sustained with an intention to kill him. It is further argued that the deceased and his wife had used abusive and unparliamentary language against the applicant and his family members and had also manhandled him. The applicant in order to avoid further escalation of fight had left the rented premises, however, the deceased had followed him, continuing to use abusive language against him and his family members. It is argued that he had attacked the applicant and it was the applicant who had made phone calls to the Investigating Officer. It is stated that the applicant and his brother had handed over the deceased to the police officers and there were no injuries found on his body and he was fully conscious at that time. It is stated that applicant is a doctor by profession. It is also pointed out that the learned ASJ vide order dated 22.04.2022 dismissed the bail application of the applicant, however, he had without any authority at that stage, mentioned that though the police have charged accused persons under Section 304 IPC, yet facts revealed that it ought to be under Section 302 IPC.

7. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has argued that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is also argued that CCTV footage of the spot of incident supports the case of prosecution, and the post-mortem report shows that injuries suffered by the deceased were anti-mortem in nature.

8. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the sides and have perused material on record.

9. In the present case, the allegations against the present accused/applicant are that he along with co-accused had beaten the deceased after he had refused to vacate the rented premises and pay rent. When he had tried to save himself and had run out of rented accommo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top