Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Mohd. Khalid @ Altaf - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 65/2020
Decided On : 16-10-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Section 302/120-B/201/34 IPC - [Section 439 Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the gravity of the offence, the evidence brought on record, and the lack of grounds for bail at the present stage. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in a case involving charges under Section 302/120-B/201/34 IPC. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's involvement in the murder of an aged person, with evidence including recoveries made at the instance of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, the evidence brought on record, and the lack of grounds for bail at the present stage. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously due to its age.
Issues: The key issues included the petitioner's alleged involvement in the murder, the gravity of the offence, and the need for expeditious disposal of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that, based on the gravity of the offence and the evidence brought on record, no grounds for bail were made out at the present stage. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the case due to its age.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 130/2012 U/s 302/120-B/201/34 IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 13.06.2012, DD No. 16 A was received at P.S. Chhawla with regard to the fact that some foul smell was coming from a locked house. SI Hari Singh alongwith Ct. Ramesh reached at the spot i.e. House No. B-12, Shyam Vihar, Phase-I, Najafgarh, Delhi. The lock of the house was broken and the dead body of an aged person was found. The hands, legs and head were severed and the dead body was in highly decomposed state. Weapon of offence was also lying at the spot. The identity of the deceased was revealed as one Sanjay Kumar Rohilla who was missing alongwith his car bearing No. DL-4CAD 7920 since 06.06.2012 and a missing report in this regard was registered vide DD No. 10 A dated 08.06.2012.
3. The above said car was found unclaimed at Tejpur Goyal Khurd Road on 07.06.2012 and a mobile phone make LG without SIM was also found lying in the said car. The statement of the son of the deceased was recorded who stated that the deceased was running his office with his partner namely Radha. On 19.06.2012, petitioner and his wife were arrested who confessed to their involvement in the present case with the help of co-accused Jeetu and Dinesh.
4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, perused the Status Report and also perused the records of this case.
5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and she has identified co-accused Radha and had stated that she has not met the husband of co-accused Radha who is the petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecution has examined PW-4 Smt. Darshna who is the land lady of the house in which the petitioner and co-accused were residing as tenants and the said witness has failed to identify the petitioner as the person who had taken her house on rent.
6. It is further submitted that PW-6 Shri Bhagwan who is the friend of the deceased has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has not identified the petitioner. It is further submitted that PW-15 has also not uttered a single word about the petitioner and has only talked about the co accused Radha and deceased. It is further submitted that PW-18 is of no significance in terms of testimony of PW-4 as PW-18 in his cross examination could not answer the material details.
7. It is further submitted that co-accused Radha has been granted regular bail vide order dated 16.01.2018. It is further submitted that recovery of one Chunni belonging to accused Radha has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner but the postmortem report nowhere connects the chunni with the crime. It is further submitted that all the material witnesses have been examined and there are material discrepancies and improvements in their testimonies. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in J.C. since 19.06.2012 and the trial will take a considerable to conclude. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Babu Singh Vs. State of UP, State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, Akil @ Javed Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representing Under trial Prisoners Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 731.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that the petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused Radha as the order dated 16.01.2018 by virtue of which she was granted bail reveals that she has been admitted to bail solely on the ground that she is a lady and has 5 year old daughter. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner had the motive to kill Sanjay Kumar Rohilla as he doubted the ille
The gravity of the offence and the evidence brought on record are crucial factors in determining the grounds for bail at the initial stage of the case.
At the bail stage, detailed analysis of witness testimonies and recoveries should be avoided, and each criminal case should be considered on its own merits.
Knowledge of impending violence must be demonstrated for conspiracy; mere association does not suffice to deny bail.
The testimonies of witnesses, even if not eye witnesses, can be sufficient to establish the involvement of the accused and the motive for the crime, influencing the decision on bail applications.
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 affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
The court emphasized that the gravity of murder charges necessitates stricter scrutiny in bail applications, regardless of interim bail status.
In double murder cases punishable by death, bail denied where prima facie circumstantial evidence establishes involvement, despite trial delay, emphasizing gravity of offence and punishment severity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
