2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
RAJ SAHA @ TARZEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 4238/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pratyush Prasanna, Saumya Yadav
For the Respondents: Satish Kumar
Bail denied due to prolonged custody, serious charges, and lack of substantial evidence negating the ongoing trial.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 read with Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Bail application - Petitioner seeks bail for an offence involving a murder charge - Testimonies of witnesses lacking direct evidence against the petitioner and dissolution of material witnesses - Dismissal of bail application upheld due to ongoing trial and grave nature of the offence. (Paras 1, 11, 20)
(B) Right to Bail - The court considers the length of custodial time against the severity of the crime; however, prior convictions and ongoing trials establish grounds for dismissal of bail - Petitioner’s legal status and previous offense negatively impact bail considerations. (Paras 10, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s involvement in a fatal assault leading to the victim's death was established through witness testimonies, although circumstantial. The petitioner had been in custody for over seven years, delaying trial proceedings significantly. Dismissal of the bail was mostly due to the serious nature of the crime and risk of absconding.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented directed concerns regarding the material witnesses and the context of the crime, aggravating conditions warranting continued detention of the petitioner pending trial.
Issues: Primary questions revolved around the sufficiency of witness testimony in affirming the petitioner’s direct involvement in the crime and the implications of previous convictions in deciding bail eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that evidence, although circumstantial, maintained significant weight in supporting conviction claims; prior convictions with pending serious charges warranted bail refusal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application regarding ongoing trial and severity of accusations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. witness statements substantiate the involvement of the petitioner. (Para 4) |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the petitioner seeks the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 10/2018 dated 27.03.2018 for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) registered at Police Station North Avenue, New Delhi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2018, information was received at Police Station North Avenue vide DD No. 6A that an unknown injured person was lying on the footpath adjoining Block 18-32, Government Servant Residential Colony, Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi. Upon receipt of the said information, IO/SI Kedar Yadav reached the spot, where one unknown male individual was found lying Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed on the footpath in an injured condition and a considerable amount of blood was found on the footpath. Thereupon, the victim was shifted to Dr. RML Hospital vide MLC No. E/67193/18. However, he was declared unfit for statement and no eyewitness could be located at that point in time. Accordingly, on the basis of the said information and MLC, abovesaid FIR was registered.
3. During the investigation, the injured was identified as one Gajender Singh. On 25.04.2018, during the course of treatment, the said injured succumbed to his injuries at Dr. RML Hospital, pursuant to which Section 302 of the IPC was added to the abovesaid case. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted at Dr. RML Hospital vide PM No. 310/18, wherein the cause of death was opined to be the ‘cumulative effect of head injury and neck injury, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.’
4. The statement of an eyewitness, namely Mithai Parshad, was recorded. He stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.03.2018, he was sleeping on the opposite side of the footpath and at around 2:30 to 3:00 A.M., he heard sounds of a quarrel, specifically, “Mar chikne ise mar de... chal Raj ab yahan se jaldi nikal le.” Similarly, Ganesh Bahadur, who was posted as a security guard at the gate of Government Quarters, Block 18-23, Pandit Pant Marg, stated that at the said time and date, while on duty, he too heard the same quarrelling voices, i.e.,“ Mar chikne ise mar de... chal Raj ab yahan se jaldi nikal le.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
5. On 15.04.2018, the petitioner was arrested by the staff of Police Station Mandir Marg in connection with FIR No. 22/2018, under Section 302 of the IPC at Police Station Mandir Marg. The petitioner got his disclosure statement recorded, wherein he disclosed that on the intervening night of 26/27.03.2018, he was sleeping along with his friend Chandan Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna on the footpath adjoining Government Quarters, Block 18-23, Pandit Pant Marg. In the meantime, one person, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, came there and started abusing them over the issue of sleeping space. Consequently, both of them assaulted the said person, and his friend Vicky is alleged to have slit the neck of the said individual with a surgical blade. Upon noticing blood oozing from his neck, they took two mobile phones from the injured’s pocket and fled from the spot.
6. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was identified by a witness, namely Pintu @ Dheeraj, who runs a shop at Pandit Pant Marg. Pintu @ Dheeraj stated that he had seen the accused Raj Saha along with co-accused Chandan Jha @ Vicky @ Chikna and the deceased Gajender at the place of occurrence prior to the incident. Subsequently, another eyewitness to the incident, namely Baba @ Arun Kumar, was also found present at the scene of crime. His statement was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, wherein he stated that on the interveni