Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 310
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
UJJAWAL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-4601/2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 483, 528, 281, 125(A), 106, 105 - Bail application for Regular Bail in a road accident case - Applicant alleged to have been falsely implicated and subjected to extortion by police - Court found no custodial interrogation required and granted bail. (Paras 1, 28)
(B) Presumption of Innocence - The presumption of innocence must be upheld, and prolonged imprisonment without trial is unjustified. (Paras 15)
(C) Police Misconduct - Allegations of police misconduct and fabrication of evidence were raised, necessitating careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the arrest and charges. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant was arrested following allegations of involvement in a road accident, with claims of police extortion and fabrication of evidence against him. The FIR was filed based on a complaint, and the Applicant contended that he was falsely implicated. (Paras 2, 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the investigations were complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and there was no need for custodial interrogation, leading to the decision to grant bail. (Paras 27, 28)
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the charges against the Applicant, the alleged police misconduct, and the presumption of innocence. (Paras 15, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the Applicant's prolonged detention was not justified given the circumstances and lack of evidence requiring further custodial interrogation. (Paras 15, 27)
Result: Bail Application is disposed of accordingly, and the Applicant is granted bail under specified conditions.
Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Mr. Hemant Kapoor, Mr. Vishal Ji, Ms. Mayuri Luthra, Mr. Mehul Gulati, Mr. Lokesh Solanki, Ms. Muskan and Mr. Tarun Maan
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) (old Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) read with Section 528 of B.N.S.S. (old Section 482 of CrPC) has been filed on behalf of Ujjawal Sharma for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 0440/2024 under Section 281/125(A)/106/105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi.
2. It is submitted that the Applicant had filed two Bail Applications before the learned Trial Court, which have both been dismissed on 29.11.2024 and 10.12.2024 respectively. It is asserted that the FIR was registered on a Complaint filed by Sh. Vikas Sharma, the Complainant wherein he has been falsely implicated by making false allegations of his involvement in the road accident.
3. On 09.11.2024 at about 11:00 p.m., Head Constable Yogender Singh along with 2/3 police officials, came to his residence where he is residing with his widowed mother and took the Applicant into custody despite protest, without disclosing the reasons and grounds for arrest.
4. Subsequently, Mr. Shivam Sharma, brother of the Applicant, was called in the Police Station Shahdara, at night and in the most unlawful and illegal manner, the police officials made a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for releasing the Applicant. They also informed that the Applicant had committed a road accident in the morning at about 11:00 a.m. with his Mahindra Car KUV 100 having registration No. DL 12 CL 7929 and injured a driver of TSR No. DL 1 RZ 2549 along with another scooty bearing registration No. DL 5S DA 0295, at Shahdara flyover. Somehow, his brother under pressure arranged Rs.1,00,000/-, which was handed over to the police officials despite which the Applicant was falsely implicated in this Case.
5. The car of the Applicant bearing registration No. DL 12 CL 7929 has already been handed over to the Police, through the brother on 10.11.2024 at about 12:30 a.m, from Shastri Park Metro Station towards Gandhi Nagar road where he had parked the vehicle due to bursting of Right Hand Side tyre, which had hit the iron pipe at the construction site of the Shahdara flyover.
6. In the afternoon of 10.11.2024, the Applicant was shocked and surprised to see the badly damaged and smashed condition of his vehicle in the Police Station, while its condition was perfect at the time when it was handed over to the Police. Even the green marks on the front RHS bumper, below the headlights, were also created in order to connect the vehicle with the accident. Apparently, police officials have intentionally and deliberately smashed the Applicant‟s car with mala fide intention to plant the aforesaid case on the Applicant.
7. It is further asserted that on 21.11.2024, the Applicant‟s mother received a call from ASI Vinay that she must reach with Rs.1,00,000/- and one surety to the Court, for the Applicant to be released on bail. Even the Bail Order dated 20.11.2024 was forwarded on the mobile phone of the brother of the Applicant at about 4:00 p.m. However, on reaching the Court, Head Constable took Rs.50,000/- more to file the Report without giving any explanation about the Bail Order dated 20.11.2024.
8. On 26.11.2024, the Bail Application was dismissed by the Court and surprisingly the Orders dated 20.11.2024 and 26.11.2024 are almost written in the same manner except “not to release on bail”, in the end.
9. After making enquiry, it was found that the TSR had met with an accident with another Car No. UP 14 EQ 8747, which has been duly recorded and circulated on the social media platform by unknown vlogger showing the damaged condition of both the aforesaid vehicles, as well as the time and place of incident. The Applicant‟s car, however, was not damaged in the front portion bonnet area, but surprisingly the damaged Auto, shows no sign of hitting on the left side of the TSR. The difference in the photographs of the car of
