IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Manwar @ Hussain – Appellant
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 779 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 302/34 - Section 164 Cr.PC - Section 439 Cr.PC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with a case under Sections 302/34 IPC. The deceased was allegedly beaten by the petitioner and others, leading to his death. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and CCTV footage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of support for the prosecution's case. It noted that the seriousness of the offense is not the sole consideration for deciding bail. The petitioner was granted bail based on clean antecedents, prolonged custody, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the seriousness of the offense, and the petitioner's potential influence on witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the testimonies of witnesses, the potential erosion of the prosecution's case, and the petitioner's clean antecedents and prolonged custody in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to regular bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
1. 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, 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, who is the younger brother of Sagufa, accused Manwar @ Hussain (petitioner) 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all public witnesses except the uncle of the deceased, namely, Dharampal have turned hostile and have not deposed in favor of the prosecution.
8. It is also submitted that co-accused Shubham Bhardwaj has already been granted regular bail.
9. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2020; investigation in the matter is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. Therefore, the custody of petitioner is no more required. He further submits that since material witnesses have already been examined, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing them or extending any threats. He therefore urges that the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.
10. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and has no case pending against him except the present one.
11. Per contra, the learned APP has argued on the lines of the Status Report. She submits that offence is of the serious nature. She submits that Dharampal, who is the uncle of the deceased has identified the petitioner as a person who had given beatings to the deceased along with other co-a
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 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 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 decision to grant regular bail was based on the length of custody, lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, and the interpretation of the accused's role in the case as per relevant legal p....
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.
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 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 consideration of the petitioner's role, antecedents, and responsibilities as a young mother in granting regular bail.
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.