Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Rohit Krishnan Mahanta - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1868 of 2023 & Cr. M.A. 18656 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, sections 302/307, 295A, 337, 279 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 185
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with a case involving a fatal accident. The prosecution's case is based on eyewitness testimonies and statements of the injured persons. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated and presents evidence of fabrication and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court carefully examines the evidence and acknowledges the potential weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including contradictory statements and unexplained delays. It emphasizes the need for reasons when granting or rejecting bail and considers the severity of the charges, the nature of the evidence, and the potential influence on witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolve around the credibility of witnesses, the presence of alcohol in the deceased's blood, fabrication of evidence, and the potential impact of long incarceration on the petitioner's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that the weaknesses in the prosecution's case, combined with the petitioner's clean antecedents and previous compliance with bail conditions, warrant granting bail. It emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the potential for injustice in prolonged incarceration for a yet-to-be-proven offense.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with witnesses. The court emphasizes that the decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under section 439 CRPC seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR NO. 387/2017 under sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Safdarjang Enclave.
2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that on 17.09.2017, information was received regarding an accident & when the police reached the spot, they found three vehicles in accidental condition at the spot. One eye witness namely, Raju was found present on the spot and the injured persons were shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR van and by public persons. The police reached the hospital with the eye witness-Raju & found injured Satish (Auto Driver), Maninder (Pillion rider of the motorcycle) and Gurpreet Singh (driver of the motorcycle) present there, who were unfit to give their statement.
3. Furthermore, one injured i.e. Rohit Krishnan Mahanta (the petitioner herein) was also found present in the emergency ward undergoing treatment. The eye witness identified the accused in the Hospital and informed the IO that the petitioner herein had committed the offence of accident while driving in a rash and negligent way.
4. On the statement of the eye witness, initially the present FIR came to be registered under sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the accused was arrested and released on bail. Later on, during the investigation one injured i.e. the driver of the motorcycle namely, Gurpreet Singh died and the pillion rider Maninder Singh gave a statement on the basis of which sections 295A/307/302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were added and the accused was re-arrested on 20.09.2017 and was sent to judicial custody.
5. Sequel to the above, chargesheet was filed against the accused before the Court on 15.12.2017 and further charges for the offences punishable under sections 307/302 IPC were framed against the accused person.
6. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, just on the basis of a statement given by the complainant/Raju, examined as PW-6, who eventually turned hostile in the court and specifically denied the suggestion that he voluntarily made statement to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered.
7. According to Mr. Luthra, a perusal of the testimony of PW-6 shows that when the incident took place he was not present at the spot and he does not even know how the accident took place.
8. Mr. Luthra further submits that the pillion rider of the motorcycle namely, Maninder Singh, who was examined as PW1, has specifically stated in his cross examination that the statement dated 18.09.2017 was handwritten; however, the alleged statement on record is a typed statement. Further, PW-4 SI Balraj, in his testimony has specifically admitted that except DD No. 17A there is no other DD entry dated 18.09.2017 pertaining to the present FIR; therefore, it is evident that the alleged statement is ante- dated.
9. He submits that as per MLC PW1was admitted in the hospital at 04:22AM on 17.09.2017 and was conscious and fit to give statement but he intentionally did not give any statement to the police on the said day. However, his first statement was recorded on 18.09.2017 i.e. after a delay of one day and there is no explanation in the chargesheet regarding the delay in recording of his statement. He submits that PW1 took legal advice during the period between 17.09.2017 and 18.09.2017 and on the basis of the same gave an exaggerated and false account of the incident in order to convert a simple road traffic accident into a deliberate hit and run case.
10. Mr. Luthra contends that the report dated 15.12.2017 by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol on the date of incident, which casts a doubt on the narrative of the prosecution
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 ....
Criminal Law - Bail Application - Provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with a....
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....
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.
Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections ba....
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.
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
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
