IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Manish Kumar @ Boxer – Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1595 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2023
DELAY - BAIL - CrPC - IPC 302/323/34
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302/323/34 of the IPC. The case involved an alleged incident where the accused persons beat the deceased resulting in his death. The applicant argued that there was an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, and the prosecution's case was doubtful due to inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and lack of support from independent witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the CCTV footage, the complainant's statements, and the lack of support from independent witnesses. It noted the gravity of the offense but also emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court granted bail to the applicant after considering the length of his judicial custody and imposed specific conditions.
Issues: Unexplained delay in FIR registration, inconsistencies in complainant's statements, lack of support from independent witnesses, gravity of the offense, length of judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and considered the lack of support from independent witnesses and the length of the applicant's judicial custody in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond and imposed specific conditions. The judgment did not express an opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 307/2020, under Sections 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') registered at PS Begumpur, North-West.
2. The facts of the present case, as stated in the status report dated 24.07.2023, authored by SHO, PS Begumpur, are as under:
i. The present FIR was registered on 03.10.2020, at the instance of Smt. Sunita Devi (mother of the deceased) who alleged that on 28.09.2020, at about 04:30 PM, the accused persons, namely, Manish @ Boxer (the present applicant), Deepak and Narsingh @ Naresh @ Narshi beat her son, Sunder Yadav (the deceased), at a spot behind a school. She further alleged that thereafter, after the deceased returned home, the accused persons came to their house and beat the deceased again with dandas and kicks.
ii. The complainant further alleged that on the next day, i.e., 29.09.2020, she took her son to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi for treatment, from where he was discharged at about 04:00 PM on the same day. Thereafter, it was stated that she took her son to the said hospital again on 30.09.2020. He was declared brought dead.
iii. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it was stated that his death was caused due to perforation of the intestine due to blunt trauma to the abdomen. It was further opined that the injury to his abdomen had been caused by a soft blunt object, recently before his death and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was also opined that the external injuries were also recently caused before his death by blunt force.
iv. Subsequently, the present FIR was registered on 03.10.2020 under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
v. On 05.10.2020, co-accused Sandeep @ Harshu and Deepak @ Lala were arrested. The weapon of offence, i.e., the danda was recovered at the instance of Sandeep @ Harshu.
vi. On 06.10.2020, co-accused Narsingh @ Naresh @ Narshi and the present applicant were arrested. Two motor-cycles bearing registration numbers DL-I IS B-97079, belonging to Deepak @ Lala and DL 8SCB4540, belonging to Narsingh @ Naresh @ Narshi, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence were recovered.
vii. One eye-witness, namely, Manoj Kumar was also injured in the present case. As per the MLC, the injury sustained by him was `simple'. Hence, Section 323 of the IPC was also added in the present FIR.
viii. During further course of investigation, the CCTV footage from a camera installed near the place of occurrence and Call Detail Records of the accused persons were also obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet in the present case was filed under Sections 302/323/34 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
3.1. It was submitted that there is an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR which renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that:
i. The alleged incident took place on 28.09.2020. However, no complaint was made by the complainant or the deceased on that day.
ii. On the next day, i.e., 29.09.2020, the deceased allegedly visited Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital because he was experiencing shoulder pain. He was given medication and discharged on the same day. On 29.09.2020 as well, no complaint regarding the alleged incident was made by the deceased or the complainant.
iii. On 30.09.2020, the deceased was declared brought dead at the hospital, however, as per the version of the prosecution case, the complainant had still not made any complaint. The matter was reported by a police officer who was present at the spot.
iv. The complainant had given her written statement to the police on 01.10.2020, however, the FIR was registered two days thereafter, i.e., on 03.10.2020.
3.2. It was submitted that
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the length of judicial custody can be a factor in granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that personal liberty should be balanced with the need to secure the accused's attendance at t....
Delay in filing an FIR and contradictions in witness statements can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to approval for bail despite serious allegations.
Presumption of guilt under POCSO, consistency of witness statements, attempt to influence witness as grounds for denying bail
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant anticipatory bail was influenced by the evidence presented, lack of requirement for further custodial interrogation, and....
The significance of evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases involving serious charges like dowry harassment and abetment to suicide.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.