Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused, charged under Sections 302, 394, 397, 201, 182, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was alleged to have played an active role in a premeditated murder linked to a financial dispute over a proprietary stock market prediction software. The court held that:
- The nature and gravity of the offence were severe, as it involved a conspiracy to commit murder.
- There was substantial electronic, forensic, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
- The accused had fled after the crime, which suggested consciousness of guilt.
- Given that witnesses, including public eyewitnesses, were yet to testify, the possibility of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses was high.
- A co-accused (the alleged mastermind) had already absconded after securing interim bail, which raised concerns that the accused could do the same.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 364, which established that in cases involving heinous offences such as murder under Section 302 IPC, bail should be granted only under exceptional circumstances.
Facts
The case originated from an incident on September 9, 2023, when the police responded to a distress call near Narela, Delhi, and found a Hyundai I-10 Grand sports car covered in bloodstains. The injured victim had been transported to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where he was declared brought dead.
Initial Claims by the Complainant
- The surviving complainant initially claimed that the victim and he were intercepted by a white car while traveling.
- He alleged that unidentified assailants emerged from the white car and stabbed the victim to death.
- Based on this statement, the police registered an FIR and initiated an investigation.
Contradictions in the Investigation
However, the police investigation unraveled inconsistencies in the complainant’s version:
- CCTV footage from a nearby CNG filling station showed that no white car was present at the crime scene.
- Truck drivers and a tea stall owner near the scene confirmed that only a grey car and a Splender motorcycle were in the vicinity around the time of the crime.
- These contradictions cast doubt on the complainant’s credibility, prompting further investigation.
Confession of the Complainant
Under sustained interrogation, the complainant confessed that he was part of a murder conspiracy orchestrated by his employer, a businessman dealing in stock market trading. The employer:
- Hired the deceased to develop a stock market prediction software for his company.
- The software was stored in a hard disk, which the deceased kept with himself.
- When the deceased demanded a share in the company’s profits and a car (XUV-700), the employer decided to eliminate him rather than accede to his demands.
- He lured the accused (a co-worker) by promising a salary increase and home loan assistance in exchange for participating in the conspiracy.
Execution of the Murder
- On the night of September 8, 2023, the complainant and the deceased traveled toward Singhu Border.
- The accused, along with another co-conspirator, Jeetu Sharma, was waiting for them.
- As soon as the victim stopped his car, the accused and his accomplice launched a brutal knife attack, stabbing the victim multiple times.
- The accused and his co-conspirator fled immediately after committing the crime.
- On October 6, 2023, the complainant (who was also involved in the plot) was arrested, and a sharp-edged weapon was recovered at his instance.
Forensic and Electronic Evidence Against the Accused
- WhatsApp call logs confirmed that the accused, the main conspirator, and other co-accused were in frequent contact before and after the murder.
- CCTV footage placed the accused and co-accused near the crime scene.
- The accused’s bloodstained clothes were recovered, further incriminating him.
- Witnesses identified the accused’s motorcycle near the deceased’s car at the time of the crime.
Issues
- Did the accused directly participate in the murder, or was he falsely implicated?
- Does the prosecution have sufficient evidence beyond co-accused statements to establish his involvement?
- Should the accused be granted bail, considering the gravity of the crime and available evidence?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The chargesheet had already been filed, and charges had been framed, meaning there was no justification for continued custody.
- The accused had no direct connection with the deceased or a personal motive to commit the crime.
- His arrest was based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is not substantive evidence.
- He had no criminal history and was not a flight risk.
- The allegations were circumstantial, and his role was not conclusively established.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The prosecution argued that the accused actively participated in the murder by stabbing the deceased multiple times.
- The WhatsApp call records and CCTV footage proved premeditated planning.
- The accused’s bloodstained clothes and motorcycle were recovered, confirming his involvement.
- Eyewitnesses saw his vehicle at the crime scene.
- Another co-accused (the mastermind) absconded after receiving bail, proving the risk of granting bail to other conspirators.
Analysis of the Law
- Under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, bail decisions must consider the nature of the crime, its severity, and evidence against the accused.
- In cases of murder, bail is generally denied unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- The court cited Vijay Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 364, which held that:
- In serious offences like murder, the court must assess the gravity of accusations, the evidence, and the risk of releasing the accused.
- Bail should be denied if there is strong evidence and a risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding.
Precedent Analysis
- Vijay Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 364 reinforced that in murder cases, courts must weigh the severity of allegations and the possibility of interference in the judicial process before granting bail.
Court’s Reasoning
- The crime was premeditated, brutal, and financially motivated.
- Forensic and electronic evidence directly linked the accused to the crime.
- Witnesses had yet to testify, making witness tampering a serious risk.
- A co-accused absconded after bail, proving that conspirators were willing to evade justice.
Conclusion
Given these factors, the court denied bail, holding that the risk of witness tampering and the gravity of the offence warranted continued judicial custody.
Implications
- This case reinforces strict judicial scrutiny in murder cases.
- Electronic and forensic evidence played a crucial role in establishing criminal intent.
- The judgment sends a strong message that financial disputes leading to violence will be met with serious legal consequences.
This ruling highlights the Delhi High Court’s commitment to preventing the misuse of judicial discretion in cases involving premeditated murder.