IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Mohd Raj – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1795 of 2023
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 302/34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail in connection with FIR No.668/2020 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at PS Adarsh Nagar. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was beaten by the petitioner and others, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and noted that the seriousness of the offence is not the sole consideration for deciding bail. It also emphasized that the object of judicial custody is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.
Issues: Contradictions in witness testimonies, seriousness of the offence, and the object of judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted regular bail with strict conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No.668/2020 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at PS Adarsh Nagar.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Rahul was admitted in BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi in an unconscious condition. The MLC of the deceased mentions history of physical assault (few people slapped him) as told by the patient's father. During treatment the injured patient succumbed to his injuries. No witness to the incident was found in the hospital. On examining the body, no apparent injury was found. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 08.10.2020. In the meantime, Sh. Dharampal son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, an eye witness to the incident, reached and stated that the deceased was his nephew. He further stated that about two month's back it came to the notice of the family that deceased Rahul was having a love affair with one girl namely Sagufa and her Family members were annoyed with Rahul and were restricting them from meeting.
3. On 07.10.2020 at about 7.00 PM, friend of the complainant/Dharampal, namely, Raju informed him telephonically that 4/5 boys were beating Rahul at Nanda Road. On reaching the spot, he found that 5/6 boys from Sagufa's family were beating Rahul with kicks and fists and Rahul was lying on the road. He separated them and got Rahul released from their clutches. When he asked from Sagufa's relatives namely Raj (petitioner), Afroz, Shahnawab, Kaif, Tajudeen Hussain and others as to why they are beating Rahul, they replied that Rahul was talking to their sister Sagufa and they have tried to make him understand but he is not mending himself, hence they would finish him. Dharampal saved Rahul by requesting them and the accused persons left the spot threatening Rahul, who was having pain in his ribs at that time. He shifted Rahul to his residence where his condition deteriorated after which he was taken to Dr. Ajay's clinic where the deceased was provided first aid. Later on, when his condition did not improve, he was shifted to BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment.
4. During the course of investigation on 08.10.2020, accused Mohd. Raj (petitioner), who is the younger brother of Sagufa, accused Manwar @ Hussain friend of Mohd. Raj and CCL Shahnawab, CCL Mohd. Intkaf Aalam, CCL Tajudeen Hussain were apprehended on their identification by eye-witness Dharampal.
5. During further course of investigation on 09.10.2020, statement of Ms. Sagufa was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC wherein she admitted to beating of Rahul by her relatives.
6. On 11.10.2020, Post Mortem Report of deceased Rahul was received wherein cause of death was opined to be "hemorrhagic shock due to abdominal injury caused by blunt force impact".
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the testimony of Sagufa, who was examined as PW1, to contend that she has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 has also stated in her testimony that the statement earlier recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC was given by her under pressure. In her statement she has not stated that deceased Rahul was beaten by her relatives including the present petitioner, who is her younger brother. On the contrary, she stated that Rahul had fallen on the road while saving himself from a bike which was passing by when he was standing on the road side. She states that Rahul was taken to the clinic and thereafter Rahul went to his residence.
8. Learned counsel also invites the attention of the Court to the testimony of Dharampal who has been examined as PW2 by the prosecution. He submits that prosecution has tried to project PW2 as an eye-witness whereas he is not an eye-witness to the incident. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW2. He submits that PW2 has stated that he received a phone call from his friend Raj
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.
The seriousness of an offense is not the sole consideration for deciding bail; the court must consider witness testimonies and the petitioner's circumstances.
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....
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 seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner's criminal history, and the possibility of influencing witnesses are crucial factors in determining bail applications in criminal cases.
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 court affirmed that the severity of allegations, potential for witness tampering, and contradictions in medical evidence warranted the denial of bail, irrespective of the claimed false implicatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of considering prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the charge, and the credibility of witnesses in bail applications, alon....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
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.