Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Rohit Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2865 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized that bail is generally the rule, and incarceration is an exception, relying on judicial discretion considering the nature of the accusations and the completeness of evidence (!) (!) .
The case involves the petitioner, charged under Sections 186, 353, and 307 of the IPC, with allegations arising from a hit-and-run incident where the petitioner, driving under influence, hit a police officer and fled the scene (!) (!) .
The investigation is nearly complete, with most witnesses, primarily police personnel, having given their statements, and a charge sheet is expected to be filed soon (!) (!) .
The court considered several factors for granting bail, including the gravity of the offence, the likelihood of influence over witnesses, the character and standing of the accused, and the stage of the investigation (!) (!) .
The petitioner is an educated individual with established roots in society, and since most witnesses are police officers unlikely to be influenced, the court found that continued detention may not serve a useful purpose (!) .
The court set specific bail conditions, including furnishing personal bonds, restrictions on leaving the NCT of Delhi without permission, regular reporting to the police station, providing mobile numbers, residence continuity, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It was clarified that the observations made in the bail order are only for the purpose of bail and should not influence the trial proceedings (!) .
The bail application was disposed of with the conditions mentioned, considering the stage of investigation and the principles of bail jurisprudence (!) (!) .
Would you like assistance with drafting a legal opinion, or any other specific legal advice based on this document?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history of bail applications. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. arguments for and against bail. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observations on the evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal standards for granting bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. final order granting bail. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.325/2021 dated 22.06.2021, registered at Police Station Hari Nagar for offences under Sections 186 /353/307 IPC.
2. The instant FIR was registered on the statement of Head Constable Vinod, No.3443/T, who stated that on 22.06.2021, he along with ASI Vishram Singh and Constable Anup were on routine checking at RGC-10 traffic circle, Harinagar Ghanta Ghar, Junk Market, on the road from Mayapuri to Harinagar Ghanta Ghar. It is stated that ASI Vishram Singh and Constable Anup were stopping the vehicles and the complainant, who was standing about 10-15 yards away from them, was giving signal to the suspected vehicles to stop. It is stated that at around 4:30 PM, one white colored car, having tinted glasses, driven by the petitioner herein, came towards them from red light of Junk Market, Mayapuri. It is stated that ASI Vishram & Constable Anup signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. It is stated that the driver initially slowed down the car but suddenly sped away, as a result, the car hit ASI Vishram and he fell on the side of the road. It is stated that Constable Anup somehow saved himself by moving on to the side. It is stated that the complainant tried to stop the car from front and he jumped on the bonnet of the car but the petitioner did not stop the car. It is stated that the complainant got hold of the wipers of the car and kept on trying to stop the vehicle but petitioner did not stop the car. It is stated that at jail road, outside DTC Bus Depot, the petitioner applied brakes as another car was coming from the opposite side and the complainant fell from the car. It is stated that the complainant hit his elbow on the windshield of the car and the windshield cracked. It is stated that the petitioner sped away towards Lajwanti Flyover and fled. The car was identified as a Volkswagen Polo bearing No. DL 14 CF 8787. The injured and the complainant were taken to DDU hospital for treatment and the instant FIR was registered.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 29.06.2021.
4. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. On 06.07.2021, during hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, stated that the petitioner will surrender on 13.07.2021 and the application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for regular bail before the appropriate Court.
5. The petitioner surrendered on 12.07.2021.
6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail before the learned Additional Session Judge. The learned Additional Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, dismissed the said application vide order dated 14.07.2021.
7. The petitioner refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. On 23.07.2021, police custody of the petitioner was sought and one day police custody of the petitioner was granted. The offending car has been recovered.
8. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing the instant application.
9. Notice was issued on 05.08.2021. Status Report has been filed.
10. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner surrendered on 12.07.2021. He states that the investigation is more or less over. He further states that the charge-sheet will be filed on or before 10.10.2021. He states that the s
The court affirmed that bail is the rule while incarceration is the exception, emphasizing judicial discretion based on the nature of accusations and evidence completeness.
a man is innocent until he is found guilty and bail is rule while jail is an exception.
The seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of absconding, and the petitioner's antecedents are crucial factors in determining eligibility for anticipatory bail.
Court denied anticipatory bail due to severity of injuries, criminal history, and risk of fleeing justice, emphasizing necessary custody for investigation.
Grant of Bail – Investigation completed – Conditions imposed.
Point of law: Anticipatory bail – Rejection of - Petitioner is a Bad Character of the area having a number of cases registered.
The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of society and highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the facts of the case before granting anticipatory bai....
The seriousness of the offences, the accused's active involvement, and the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence if released are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The court ruled that granting bail in murder cases requires careful consideration of the severity of the charge, risk of absconding, and the accused's past conduct, highlighting the risks involved in....
Bail can be granted when the charge-sheet is filed, and conditions can be imposed to ensure the complainant's safety without unjustly detaining the accused.
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
