Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused, holding that the gravity of the offence, the defined role of the accused, and the evidence on record did not justify granting bail. The court emphasized that the accused was one of the main perpetrators, having allegedly fired a gunshot at the complainant and later handed the weapon to his co-accused, who then shot the complainant’s father, resulting in his death. The court observed that his role was distinct from other co-accused who were granted bail, as they were only involved in physical assault and stone-pelting. The court also rejected the argument that contradictions in the prosecution’s case justified bail, stating that such discrepancies should be evaluated during the trial. Additionally, the court noted that the accused had a prior criminal record, which weighed against granting bail.
Based on these factors, the court concluded that “considering all the factors and the gravity of the offence, there is no case made out for the grant of bail,” and the bail application was dismissed.
Facts of the Case
The case stems from an altercation on June 14, 2018, when the complainant, along with his family members, was attacked by the accused and his associates in Sangam Vihar, Delhi. According to the prosecution, the dispute began when the complainant went to collect water from a government pipeline near the accused’s residence. The accused allegedly started beating the complainant, prompting his father and uncle to intervene. The complainant and his family then retreated to their house.
Shortly thereafter, the accused, along with several other individuals, arrived at the complainant’s house and began pelting stones and bricks at the family members. The prosecution further alleged that during the attack, the accused fired a gunshot at the complainant, injuring his hand. Following this, he handed the firearm to a co-accused, who then fired at the complainant’s father, hitting him in the chest. The complainant’s father succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
The incident was reported to the police via a PCR call at 8:35 PM on June 14, 2018, and a case was registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sangam Vihar. The FIR was officially registered at 1:15 AM on June 15, 2018.
Issues
- Whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the severity of the offence?
- Whether the contradictions in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding CCTV footage and medical records, warranted bail?
- Whether the accused’s prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings justified bail?
- Whether the accused’s role in the offence distinguished him from co-accused who were granted bail?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The accused had been in custody for over four years, and the trial had progressed slowly, with only 9 out of 40 witnesses examined.
- The co-accused were granted bail, yet the petitioner remained in custody, despite no direct evidence proving he fired the fatal shot.
- No firearm was recovered from the accused, and the CCTV footage did not show him using a weapon.
- The complainant’s medical examination was inconsistent, and the forensic evidence did not link the recovered bullets to the accused.
- The accused was earlier released on interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic, and no adverse conduct was reported during that period.
- The delay in the trial was prejudicial, as the accused was the sole earning member of his family, and his continued incarceration caused hardship to his children, who were pursuing higher education.
- The grounds of arrest were not provided in writing, violating constitutional and procedural safeguards, warranting bail.
The petitioner cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments where bail was granted in cases of prolonged incarceration, including:
- Praveen Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268)
- Santosh Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2732)
- Deepak Tiwari vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7810)
The petitioner also relied on Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 SCC OnLine SC 934) and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244), arguing that an accused is entitled to bail if the grounds of arrest are not provided in writing.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The accused was one of the main perpetrators and played an active role in the crime, including firing a gunshot at the complainant and subsequently handing the firearm to his associate, who then fired the fatal shot.
- 11 out of 40 witnesses had already been examined, and the trial was progressing, negating the claim of unreasonable delay.
- The nature of the offence was heinous, involving murder and attempted murder, justifying continued detention.
- The co-accused granted bail were involved only in stone-pelting, whereas the accused played a direct role in the shooting.
- The accused had a prior criminal record, indicating the possibility of reoffending if released on bail.
The State strongly opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the crime, the weight of evidence, and the public interest in ensuring that individuals accused of heinous offences do not evade justice.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined the legal principles governing bail in serious offences, particularly:
- Section 439 of the CrPC, which grants courts discretion to release an accused on bail.
- Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) and Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder), under which bail is usually denied unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s guidance in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010 SCC OnLine SC 1242), outlining factors for bail:
- The prima facie case against the accused.
- Severity of punishment if convicted.
- Possibility of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses.
The court noted that in cases involving murder and firearm-related offences, bail is exceptionally granted only when the accused’s role is minor, or evidence against them is weak.
Precedent Analysis
The court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, noting that those decisions involved delays in trial without direct evidence linking the accused to the offence. Here, the prosecution presented:
- Eyewitness testimony identifying the accused as having fired a shot at the complainant.
- Medical records confirming gunshot injuries to the complainant and the deceased.
- CCTV footage showing the accused present at the crime scene, even if the firing itself was not captured.
Court’s Reasoning
- The accused’s role was direct and significant, making his case incomparable to the co-accused who were only engaged in stone-pelting.
- CCTV footage, though not conclusive, corroborated the sequence of events.
- Medical records confirmed gunshot injuries, aligning with the prosecution’s version.
- Past criminal record weighed against the accused, as it indicated a potential risk of reoffending.
- The delay in trial was not unjustified, as witnesses were actively being examined.
- No violation of procedural rights was established regarding the accused’s arrest.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that:
- The accused played a direct role in the offence, distinguishing him from the co-accused granted bail.
- The evidence against him was strong, with eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and medical records supporting the prosecution’s case.
- Given the serious nature of the crime, risk of witness tampering, and lack of undue delay in trial, bail was not warranted.
The court concluded: “Considering all the factors and the gravity of the offence, there is no case made out for the grant of bail.”