Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that serious inconsistencies between the prosecution version in the FIR and the medical history recorded in the medico-legal certificate, coupled with unexplained delay in arrest and doubtful recovery of the alleged weapon, rendered continued incarceration unjustified. The Court ruled that liberty cannot be denied where prosecution evidence raises prima facie doubts and all material witnesses already stand examined — bail allowed pending trial.
Court’s decision
Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the bail application and directed release of the accused on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety, observing that the case disclosed substantial infirmities at the stage of bail. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to consideration of bail and would be tested by the trial court at the stage of final adjudication.
Facts
The FIR was registered in September 2023 at Police Station Kartavya Path alleging that during a heated exchange, the accused struck the maternal uncle of the complainant on the head with an iron rod. The injured was taken to hospital and later succumbed to his injuries. Initially, the case was registered for a lesser offence, which was subsequently converted to a homicide charge after the death of the injured.
The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The accused was not apprehended at the spot and was arrested nearly seven months after the incident. During investigation, an iron rod was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. The accused remained in judicial custody since April 2024 when he approached the High Court seeking regular bail.
Issues
The central issue before the High Court was whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, in light of alleged contradictions between the prosecution story and medical evidence, delay in arrest, and questionable recovery of the weapon. The Court also considered whether further incarceration was necessary when key public witnesses had already been examined and the investigation stood substantially concluded.
Petitioner’s arguments
The accused contended that he had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution version was unreliable. It was argued that the medico-legal certificate prepared at a Ghaziabad hospital recorded a completely different history, stating that the deceased was injured during a scuffle between two groups, which contradicted the FIR narrative of a single targeted assault.
The defence highlighted that the injured was taken to a distant hospital instead of a nearby facility, raising doubts about the prosecution version. It was further submitted that the accused was arrested after an unexplained delay of seven months and that the alleged recovery of the iron rod at such a belated stage was inherently doubtful, especially when no bloodstains or fingerprints were found on it. With all public witnesses already examined, continued detention was argued to be unnecessary.
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations involved a serious offence resulting in death. It was submitted that the FIR was based on the statement of an eyewitness and that the charge was later enhanced after the victim succumbed to injuries. The prosecution contended that the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegations warranted continued custody of the accused pending trial.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined settled principles governing grant of bail, reiterating that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly when the trial is likely to take time and the accused is not shown to be a flight risk or capable of influencing witnesses. It emphasised that at the bail stage, courts are entitled to assess whether the prosecution case, on a prima facie evaluation, inspires confidence or discloses glaring inconsistencies that dilute the justification for prolonged incarceration.
Precedent analysis
While the order did not cite specific precedents, it reflects consistent jurisprudence that serious doubts arising from contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony, unexplained investigative delays, and weak forensic linkage to alleged weapons are relevant considerations at the bail stage. Courts have repeatedly held that where evidence is largely documentary or witnesses are already examined, continued custody serves no meaningful purpose.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found substance in the defence submission that the medical history recorded at the hospital did not align with the prosecution’s case as set out in the FIR. It noted that the MLC referred to a scuffle involving multiple persons, not a singular assault attributed to the accused.
The Court also found it significant that the accused was not arrested from the spot and was taken into custody only after seven months, making the subsequent recovery of the alleged weapon suspect. The absence of bloodstains or fingerprint analysis further weakened the evidentiary value of the recovery. Since all public witnesses had already been examined and the accused had been in custody for a considerable period, the Court held that there was no justification to further curtail his liberty.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the accused be released on bail, subject to furnishing the requisite bond and surety. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial.
Implications
This ruling underscores judicial sensitivity to inconsistencies in prosecution cases at the bail stage, even in serious offences involving death. It reinforces that delayed arrest, doubtful recoveries, and contradictions between medical and ocular evidence can significantly tilt the balance in favour of liberty. The judgment reiterates that pre-trial detention is not punitive and must yield where continued custody is not essential for investigation or trial.
Case law references
- Bail jurisprudence in homicide cases: Bail may be granted where prosecution evidence shows prima facie inconsistencies and custody is no longer necessary. Applied to allow release.
- Evidentiary value of recoveries: Delayed recovery without forensic linkage weakens prosecution case. Applied to doubt alleged weapon recovery.
- Medical evidence vs FIR narrative: Contradictions between MLC history and FIR are relevant at bail stage. Applied to grant bail.
FAQs
1. Can bail be granted in a case involving death under Section 304 IPC?
Yes. Bail can be granted if the court finds prima facie weaknesses in the prosecution case and continued custody is not necessary.
2. Do contradictions in medical evidence matter at the bail stage?
Yes. Courts can consider inconsistencies between medical records and prosecution allegations while deciding bail.
3. Does grant of bail mean the accused is acquitted?
No. Bail orders are interim and do not determine guilt, which will be decided at trial.
