IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Amit Singh Bhandari@amit Pal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2367 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023
Bail - Criminal Law - CrPC, IPC - 439 - 302/397/411/120B/34 - The court discussed the principles governing grant or refusal of bail and the factors to be considered before granting bail. It emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the nature of supporting evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302/397/411/120B/34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant conspired to loot and murder the deceased, who was the landlord's wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including disclosure statements and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that although the applicant was not at the spot during the incident, other material evidence pointed to his involvement. The court highlighted the identification of the applicant by the deceased's husband, the association of the co-accused with the applicant, and the location of their mobile phones as factors indicating the applicant's prima facie involvement.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy and the severity of the charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, as well as the nature of supporting evidence, including witness identification and mobile phone location records.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The court clarified that its decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case pending trial.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J.
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 409/2015, under Sections 302/397/411/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at PS. Kapashera, Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.09.2015, a PCR call was received vide DD Entry No. 18A and 19A and acting on it, the concerned police personnel reached H.No. 154/3, Dundahera Road, Bijwasan, Delhi. They were apprised that a lady namely, Bimla Devi, had been taken to Columbia Asia Hospital by her son. Upon reaching Columbia Asia Hospital, the police was informed that the aforesaid lady was declared brought dead. Thereafter, statement of complainant, Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, i.e., son of the deceased, was recorded and present FIR was registered under Section 302 of the IPC at PS. Kapashera. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of further investigation, on 12.10.2015 Crime Branch South, P.S. R.K. Puram gave information regarding the arrest of the present applicant. It is further the case of the prosecution that the present applicant, on further interrogation disclosed that he was residing at H.No. 154/3, Dundahera Road, Bijwasan, Delhi and had to pay 3 months' rent of Rs. 20,000/- to the landlord/owner Sh. Shiv Ganesh Bhardwaj, husband of the deceased. He further disclosed that the deceased used to pester him to pay the rent and since he was unable to pay the same, he contacted his friend Ashwani from Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh and informed that the landlady had a lot of money and gold and it can be looted after committing the murder. It was further disclosed that they, in turn involved two other associates, namely, Chhuttan and Ajju in the said conspiracy. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, it was disclosed that on 22.09.2015, they looted the home of the deceased after committing her murder. It is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of the present applicant, the aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Ashwani Kushwah, Vijay Kumar Kushwaha @ Chhuttan and Ajay Kumar Patel @ Ajju were arrested and the looted articles were recovered from their possession/at their instance. It is further the case of the prosecution that one witness, namely, Nitin Khandelwal identified the co-accused persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Kushwaha and Ashwani Kushwah as the persons who were seen coming out from the gate of house of the deceased on 22.09.2015. It is also the case of the prosecution that mobile phone belonging to the deceased was recovered at the instance of the applicant.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been in judicial custody for the last 5 years. It was submitted that the case of the prosecution is circumstantial in nature and there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. It was further submitted that the present applicant had been granted interim bail on the grounds of the HPC Guidelines, and he surrendered in time, without misusing the liberty granted to him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant further submitted that the case of the prosecution against the present applicant is only based on disclosure statements. It was pointed out that nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that the present applicant was a tenant of the deceased's husband. It was further submitted that the recovery of the mobile phone at the instance of the present applicant also cannot be relied upon as the IMEI numbers are different. It was also submitted that no evidence has been placed on record to show that the phone recovered at the instance of the present applicant belonged to the deceased.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that the co-accused persons were arrested at the instance of the present applicant. The co-accused persons, namely, Vijay Kumar Kushwah and Ashwani Kushwah, had been identified by Nitin Khandelwal/PW-9 as the persons coming out f
The court emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the consideration of supporting evidence when deciding on bail applications in serious criminal ca....
The discretion of the High Court to grant bail must be exercised with the due application of mind and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the Court. The grant of bail is to be secured with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that previous involvements in criminal cases should not be the sole factor for denying bail if the available material justifies the discretion exer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail was influenced by the lack of specific allegations, absence of corroborative evidence, and inconclusive electronic evidence ....
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.
Judges emphasized that proof in circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in homicide cases, with a critical focus on the timing of alleged ev....
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.
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.