Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1238 of 2023
Decided On : 01-11-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.P.C - [302/34 IPC] - The court discussed the factors to be considered in a bail application, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the evidence presented. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence. The court found that the evidence and circumstances tilted the balance in favor of the petitioner for grant of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with a case under Sections 302/34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused were involved in the murder of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the evidence, including witness testimonies and FSL report, and found that the evidence and circumstances favored the petitioner for grant of bail.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the FSL report, and the CCTV footage, as well as the delay in the trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence. It also considered the delay in the trial process as a factor in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to bail with specific conditions, including a personal bond and surety bond, and compliance with court appearances and communication with the investigating officer.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking grant of regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 0297/2021 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at P.S. Mangolpuri.
2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 05.04.2021, information was received that a dead body was lying in a park. Accordingly, police officials reached the spot, where they found a person in an unconscious state having multiple injuries on his face. Thereafter, efforts were undertaken to establish the identity of the body.
3. In the meantime, one person namely, Naresh reached the spot and identified the unconscious person as his brother Chanderbhan s/o Sobharam R/o L-956, Mangolpuri, New Delhi who was missing since 04.04.2021. Naresh specifically alleged that the deceased's scooty was found parked outside the shop of witness-Pradeep, who in-turn had informed the family of the deceased that the deceased went with Pradeep (petitioner herein) and Raju on their motorcycle. The aforesaid FIR thus, came to be registered.
4. During course of investigation, statement of witness-Pradeep was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that the deceased had parked his scooty in front of his shop and went with petitioner-Pradeep and Raju on their motorcycle. After some time, witness-Pradeep called the deceased to collect his scooty but the deceased did not return to collect the same.
5. During further course of investigation, statements of other witnesses were recorded. Raju and the petitioner were also called and questioned, who confessed their involvement and stated that Chanderbhan used to say bad words for them after getting drunk. Therefore, they had decided to kill him. They killed him with stones found on the road and took his phone also. Thereafter, they consumed wine in Avantika Rohini and went to Swaroop Nagar and thereafter returned back. It was revealed by Raju as well as the petitioner that they had left their phones at their home so that their location could not be tracked. They had thrown the phone and knife used in this murder in Swaroop Nagar and thrown the stone in the side of park.
6. Sequel to the above, the present petitioner was arrested by the police on 07.04.2021.
7. It is also the case of the prosecution that a blood-stained stone was recovered at the instance of co-accused Raju from the park. Further, at the instance of both the accused, blood-stained clothes were recovered from their respective houses. However, DNA could not be generated from the clothes of the accused persons.
8. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the offence which has allegedly been committed by the petitioner and the case rests merely upon circumstantial evidence.
9. He submits that Jaipal, the brother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1, has completely demolished the case of the prosecution, in as much as, in his cross-examination he has admitted that after the death of deceased he had given an interview in T.V. on `Ham Vatan' channel where he narrated that his deceased brother had neither animosity with anybody nor there was any monetary transaction with anyone. PW-1 further stated that his brother was taken by some people sitting in Santro car, which is contrary to the prosecution version that the petitioner with co accused Raju had taken deceased Chanderbhan on a motorcycle.
10. He submits that the last seen witness Pardeep, who was examined as PW-2, has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile and despite being cross examined by the learned APP nothing could be elicited from him against the petitioner.
11. He submits that the testimony of PW-3 (who is the relative of the deceased) suffers from material contradiction vis-a-vis his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. He invites attention of the Court to the testimony of Vinod Kumar, who was examined as PW-4, to contend that the said witness has not iden
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 presumption of innocence, the need for reasons in bail decisions, and the potential for injustice in prolonged incarceration for unproven offenses are central legal principles established in the ....
The presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need to avoid prolonged custody without a conclusion of the trial influenced the court's decision to grant regular bail to the petitio....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased, the possibility of a consensual romantic relationship,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence and the need to secure the presence of the accused during trial when considering a bail application.
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.
Presumption of innocence, consideration of gaps in prosecution's version, and potential for protracted trial influenced the court's decision in granting bail.
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
