SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
PARDEEP PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1505/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Navlendu Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State

The legal principle established affirms the presumption of innocence and emphasizes that for serious charges, the essential elements must be adequately proven by prosecution for detention to continue.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364A/392/397/412/34 - Arms Act - Bail application seeking regular bail for accused in serious offences including abduction and robbery dismissed by trial court but allowed through High Court’s order. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and necessity for proving the essential ingredients of the charges. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 18)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail - The court underscored that the purpose of bail is to secure presence at the trial, not to punish the accused prior to conviction. The bail application was ultimately granted considering the accused’s humanitarian concerns for his mother’s health and the lack of strong evidence against the accused. (Paras 9, 10, 18)

Facts of the case:
The accused filed for bail citing health issues of mother and the absence of conclusive proof of guilt for grave charges against him. The investigation had recovered the complainant is already safe.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that remaining jailed would not serve any beneficial purpose, hence bail was granted under specific conditions.

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused posed a flight risk or threat to justice and if humanitarian grounds are enough to grant bail in serious cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reaffirmed that bail applications must thoroughly consider both the merits of the case against the accused and broader humanitarian factors. Pared down to essential ingredients, prosecution's evidence was found insufficient at this stage.

Result: Bail application granted under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application factual context. (Para 1)

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (earlier Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been filed on behalf of Petitioner – Pardeep Pradhan for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 0461/2021 dated 19.11.2021 under Section 364A /392/397/412/34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and Sections 25 /27/54/59/30 of Arms Act , registered at Police Station Paharganj.

Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1505/2025 Page 1 of 7 Signed By:ANIL

2. Briefly stated, the Bail Application filed before the learned ASJ had been dismissed vide Order dated 04.04.2025. It is submitted that the Applicant is an Accused and not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty, cannot be brushed aside lightly howsoever stringent the penal law may be. It is submitted that due to lack of post-operative palliative care, the Applicant’s mother is experiencing complications in her operated eye. She is in urgent need of cataract surgery for her right eye and also requires emotional and moral support, especially in the light of recent demise of Applicant’s father.

3. It is further submitted that the three conditions for making of an offence under Section 364A IPC as laid down by Apex Court in Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana ; (2021) 9 SCC 59 are:

“A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction;

B) There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt;

C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.”

4. The necessary ingredients have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Not only act of abduction is to be established, but demand of ransom coupled with threat to life of the person abducted must also be established as Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1505/2025 Page 2 of 7 Signed By:ANIL held by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Dhingra vs. State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76 .

5. The learned ASJ has not considered even the humanitarian aspect and has incorrectly observed that the Applicant’s mother can be taken care of by other family members or friends in his absence. In his absence, this presumption is particularly unjustified, given that Applicant is the sole person responsible for her care.

6. It is submitted that the Applicant had sought grant of Interim Bail from this Court on 24.02.2025 for a period of 11 days, till 07.03.2025. Interim Bail was granted for the cataract operation of the Applicant’s mother, which was done on 02.03.2025, though it was earlier scheduled for 25.03.2025. On the night of 25.02.2025 at about 9.00 PM, the Applicant was released on Interim Bail. However, considering the late hour of release at about 9.00 PM, it was impossible for him to consult the doctor without prior appointment to schedule his mother’s cataract operation, which was scheduled for the same date.

7. Since the Applicant’s mother was suffering from arthritis for several years, the Applicant took her to Aakash Hospital for further treatment on account of her worsening condition. The appointment was scheduled for 27.02.2024 and the doctor prescribed her the requisite treatment. The follow up review was scheduled after two months. During the short duration of Interim Bail of just 10 days, he had immense pressure to ensure his mother’s requisite treatment.

8. Applicant is a 36 years old, responsible and law abiding citizen, who holds respectable position in the society. After the demise of his father, he is Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1505/2025 Page 3 of 7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top