The presumption of innocence requires bail unless substantial evidence indicates continued detention is necessary; mere allegations without clear causation do not justify custody.

ORDER

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant Gautam s/o Sh. Dulare, who is in judicial custody in relation to the FIR No. 340/2020, Police Station Govind Puri under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 since 11.8.2020 seeks the grant of bail in relation thereto in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, submitting to the effect that

• that investigation in the matter is complete;
• that the Charge sheet has already been filed;
• that the applicant cannot be detained in custody by way of a penalty and cannot be presumed to be guilty till held so;
• that the applicant has clean antecedents and that there are no allegations against the petitioner by the brother of the deceased in relation to any overt act committed by the applicant;
• that even as per the prosecution version there was no weapon of offence allegedly used by the petitioner nor was there any recovery effected from him or at the behest of the applicant during investigation;
• that no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and no useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration and
• that there is no scope of the applicant tampering with or influencing the witnesses nor is there any apprehension of any threat to the witnesses of the prosecution as most of the witnesses cited by the prosecution are official witnesses;
• inter alia, it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the examination of the prosecution witnesses would take ample time and that there is no scope of the applicant fleeing from justice;
• that the applicant has a family of five minor children, i.e. four daughters and a son, who are completely dependent on him and;
• that even if the prosecution version is accepted as a gospel truth, no offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out and at the most only a charge under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be framed against the applicant.

2. The notice of the application was issued to the State.

3. The status reports dated 27.10.2021 and 13.11.2021 under signatures of the SHO Police Station Govind Puri have been submitted. The copy of the post mortem report conducted on the body of the deceased at the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi, indicates the date of conducting of the autopsy as being 10.8.2020 and copy of the FSL result dated 15.12.2020 as well as of the RFSL, Biology Division result dated 27.11.2020 have been placed on record by the State along with the copies of the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the witnesses named Haseen S/o Jalish Ahmad and Saleem S/o Jalish Ahmad.

4. The prosecution version as set forth through the status report and the FSL and RFSL reports and the statements of prosecution witnesses examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is to the effect that on 6.8.2020 an information in relation to a dead body of an unknown male person found in a decomposed manner lying at the Tughlakabad Village was received at the Police Station Govind Puri, as a consequence of which the police reached the spot and found the decomposed male dead body in the Tughlakabad Forest near the Balmiki Colony Road wrapped in a plastic gunny bag with a bamboo stick inserted on the top of it to carry the same in the area of Police Station Govind Puri. It is further submitted thereby that on the right hand of the forearm of the deceased, a tattoo mark as Heena or Reena and Durga Devi was seen, no eyewitness was found and the case was registered vide FIR No. 340/2020, Police Station Govind Puri under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Efforts are stated to have been made for identification of