Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
Ajayaveer – Appellant
Versus
State Through Sho P S Bawana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case facts (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments for bail (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations and decision (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final order granting bail (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 606/2024 of PS Bawana for offence under Section 105 BNS.
2. The prosecution case is as follows. On 06.08.2024, on receipt of DD No. 86A regarding an unconscious man without any visible injuries found near factory no. 250, Sector-1, Bawana, the investigating officer from PS Bawana proceeded to the spot, where he met the first informant Rajesh, who informed that the unconscious man lying there was Kamal, working as a truck driver with him for the past three years. When Kamal did not respond, Rajesh called the emergency services. Upon arrival at the crime scene, the investigation team did not find any blood spots or visible injuries, so Kamal was taken to MV hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. After placing the dead body in mortuary and informing the wife of the deceased, the Investigating Officer proceeded further with the investigation. The post-mortem report of the deceased mentioned the cause of death as cerebral dama
Bail granted due to lack of serious opposition and absence of motive.
The individual role of the accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have been part of an unlawful assembly, as established by the apex Court.
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's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence establishing the accused's intention to commit murder under Sec. 302 of IPC and the completion of the investigation.
The court granted bail due to conflicting witness statements and non-fatal injuries, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
The court emphasizes the necessity of eyewitness testimony and motive for the charges, allowing bail in the absence of concrete evidence.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted for serious offences, especially those punishable by capital punishment, and that shared liability exists when co-accused act in concert.
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
