IMPORTANT POINT
The right to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right of personal liberty and must be considered liberally in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - Background in Brief:

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the Order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition, being Crl. Rev. No. 642/2023, titled Sanjay More v. State, and praying for release of the petitioner on Statutory Bail in FIR No. 380/2023 registered at Police Station: Kirti Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC').

2. The above FIR has been registered on a complaint received from the father of the deceased stating that the deceased, aged around 23 years, was unemployed and was also a drug addict. On the day of the incident at around 3.00 AM, he went out of the house. He came back at around 6.30 AM, completely wounded, with blood oozing from his head and nose. He had other injury marks on other parts of his body as well. There was also something like black paint on some parts of his body. Upon enquiry, the deceased told to the complainant that he was roaming around the plot No. 52/53 Furniture block when some persons there mistook him to be a thief, and caught hold of him and started beating him with sticks (dandas), legs and fists. They also put something like black paint on him. The complainant took his son to a local clinic for medicines, however, as the medicines did not work and his condition deteriorated, he was taken to Ashray Clinic, Kirti Nagar, Kamla Nehru Camp, where the doctor advised him to immediately rush the deceased to the Safdarjung Hospital. On the way to the Safdarjung Hospital, unfortunately the deceased died.

3. Based on the above complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2023.

4. As the charge-sheet was not filed in spite of expiry of a period of 60 days of the arrest, the petitioner filed the application under Proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking Statutory Bail. The said application was dismissed by the learned Link Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 31.10.2023. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of the abovementioned Revision Petition. The same has been dismissed by way of the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2023.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Varun Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi, Neutral Citation No.2023:DHC:1704, submits that where the FIR is lodged invoking Section 304 of the IPC, the accused/petitioner shall be entitled to a Statutory Bail on the expiry of 60 days of the arrest, until and unless the Investigating Agency apprises the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused is being charged under Section 304-I of the IPC, that is, for an offence for which the accused can be sentenced upto imprisonment for life.

Submissions of the learned APP:

6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submits that in the present case, the FIR itself points to the offence being committed under Section 304-I of the IPC. The deceased was brutally injured by the accused as is evident from the MLC and the opinion of the doctor that the injury suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is also so evident from the CCTV footage of the incident. He further submits that the FIR is registered only under Section 304 of the IPC without specifying whether the investigation will lead to the offence found under Part-I and II of Section 304 of the IPC and therefore, merely because the FIR invoked Section 304 of the IPC does not mean that it is invoking Section 304-II of the IPC; the nature of the allegations in the FIR has to be considered by the Court for determining the same.

7. He submits that the judgment of this Court in Varun Goyal (supra) would not be applicable as it was rendered in the facts of i