Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court rejected the petition seeking regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by an accused charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), along with Sections 427 and 34 IPC. The Court, while acknowledging the grave nature of injuries sustained by the victim and the potential threat to unexamined witnesses, held:
“In the conspectus of the evidence on record, particularly the dangerous nature of injuries sustained by the victim Asif, the statements of the injured persons, and the fact that their testimonies are yet-to-be-recorded before the Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.”
The bail application was dismissed, but liberty was granted to file a fresh application after the testimony of the injured witnesses is recorded.
Facts
The incident arose out of a quarrel on 5 March 2024 near Khadda Colony, Jaitpur Extension, Delhi, where the petitioner and other co-accused were alleged to have attacked three individuals. The complainant alleged that after an initial argument, the main accused returned with others, including the petitioner, all armed. One victim was stabbed in the abdomen and sustained multiple life-threatening injuries, while the others were allegedly beaten with sticks (dandas).
A charge sheet was filed against five accused, including the petitioner, for offences under Sections 307, 427, and 34 IPC. The petitioner had previously sought bail thrice before the Trial Court, which was rejected.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS despite being implicated in a case under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the evidence on record supports the petitioner’s claim of a limited role in the incident.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner’s counsel contended that he played a limited role and was not the main assailant. He argued:
- Afsan was the primary attacker who inflicted stab wounds on the victim.
- The petitioner is a friend, not a relative of the co-accused.
- The petitioner allegedly only inflicted danda blows and caused no injuries to the critically injured victim, Asif.
- Medical records do not support claims of danda injuries on Kaif Mohammad or Rizwan.
- The statement of the injured Asif recorded later on 25 April 2024 involved major improvements, made to falsely implicate the petitioner.
- Petitioner has clean antecedents and has been in custody for over a year while the trial is delayed.
- One of the accused, Zafar, has already been granted bail, and therefore, parity should be considered.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The State opposed the bail, contending:
- The petitioner absconded after the offence, necessitating proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
- Injured Asif suffered dangerous, life-threatening stab injuries and was hospitalized for over a month.
- All accused, including the petitioner, were armed and acted with a common intention.
- Injured witnesses have not yet testified and their safety would be jeopardized by the petitioner’s release.
- Parity with Zafar was invalid as Zafar presented CCTV footage for alibi and was granted bail on account of age and evidence.
- The counsel for the injured emphasized:
- The discharge summary termed the injuries “dangerous” and necessitated two surgeries.
- Petitioner and victims reside in close proximity, increasing the risk of witness intimidation.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 307 IPC concerns attempt to murder, which is a non-bailable offence and attracts strict scrutiny during bail consideration.
- Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail but with caution, particularly where investigation is complete and trial is ongoing.
- The Court gave weight to the severity of injuries, corroborative statements of witnesses, and the stage of the trial.
Precedent Analysis
While no specific precedent was cited in the order, the decision reflects a consistent judicial trend of denying bail in cases of serious bodily harm and life-threatening injuries, particularly when the injured witnesses are yet to testify and there exists a risk of tampering with evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court placed strong reliance on:
- The nature of injuries as detailed in the hospital’s discharge summary, which reflected multiple organ injuries and serious intraoperative complications.
- Statements by Rizwan and Kaif, recorded immediately after the incident, corroborating the petitioner’s active role.
- Asif’s later statement, which specifically attributed danda blows to the petitioner.
- The Court rejected the argument of delay in trial being deliberate and accepted the State’s explanation about one co-accused’s absence delaying witness examination.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate considering:
- The gravity of injuries.
- Active involvement of the petitioner as per victim statements.
- Pending testimonies of injured witnesses.
Thus, the bail application was dismissed with liberty to approach the court afresh after the evidence of injured witnesses is recorded.
Implications
- This order reiterates the judicial stance that in cases involving life-threatening injuries and group assaults, bail is to be granted with utmost caution.
- The Court has stressed the significance of preserving the sanctity of witness testimonies, particularly when the accused and victims live in the same locality.
- It also reinforces that parity in bail cannot be claimed mechanically without considering factual distinctions like alibi and age.