Lack of Admissible Evidence Warrants Bail: Delhi High Court

In a stern rebuke to procedural lethargy, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Sarvesh Singh, who had been in judicial custody since 2018 in connection with a murder case. The decision highlights the necessity for investigative agencies to remain diligent, as the court expressed grave dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s lack of preparation.

Case Background

Sarvesh Singh was facing trial under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), 201 (destruction of evidence), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, following his arrest on July 22, 2018. The prosecution alleged that Singh, alongside co-accused, had murdered the deceased by strangulation. After years in custody, Singh moved for regular bail, leading to the recent proceedings before Justice Girish Kathpalia.

The Prosecution’s Lapse

The hearing was marked by significant administrative dysfunction. Justice Kathpalia noted that neither the Investigating Officer (IO) nor the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Sarai Rohilla appeared prepared for the case. Inspector Jag Mohan, despite attending the hearing, failed to brief the prosecutor, leading the court to observe that, "Adjourning such bail matters further would not be appropriate."

The court further expressed anguish over the lack of interest shown by the police in assisting the prosecutor. The learned APP, upon reviewing the status report, ultimately conceded that the prosecution lacked admissible evidence against the applicant beyond his own custodial confession.

Key Observations

The court’s ruling emphasized the fundamental principle that custody cannot be maintained in the absence of substantive, admissible evidence. Key excerpts from the judgment include:

• "Apart from his confessional statement recorded in police custody, there is no evidence collected by the investigator against the accused/applicant."
• "The police does not seem to be interested in opposing liberty to the accused/applicant."
• "Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for information with the hope that some corrective measures shall be taken by ensuring that in bail matters, the investigating officers should brief the prosecutor before the hearing commences."

Court’s Decision

Justice Kathpalia allowed the bail application, directing that Sarvesh Singh be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount.

Beyond the immediate grant of bail, the judgment serves as a sharp reminder to the police force. By ordering a copy of the order to be sent to the Commissioner of Police, the High Court signaled that the systemic failures—such as the lack of communication between IOs, SHOs, and prosecutors—must be addressed urgently to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. This decision reinforces that the right to liberty cannot be overlooked due to administrative negligence or a lack of credible evidence.