Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for over five years, in a case involving allegations of abduction and murder under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized the prolonged detention and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating, “Prolonged incarceration as an undertrial militates against the right to life and personal liberty.” The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to several conditions.
Facts:
The prosecution’s case revolves around the alleged abduction and murder of the deceased by the applicant and co-accused. The incident occurred when the deceased was assisting his mother in purchasing groceries from a nearby market. The applicant and co-accused allegedly arrived in a car, dragged the deceased into the vehicle, and fled the scene. The deceased’s body was later discovered within the jurisdiction of a different police station in Haryana. The FIR, originally registered under Sections 365/34 IPC, was amended to include charges under Section 302 IPC following the recovery of the deceased’s body.
Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite serious charges of abduction and murder, considering the prolonged period of custody and the right to a fair trial.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for more than five years and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, primarily the testimonies of the complainant (mother of the deceased) and the father of the deceased, were contradictory. It was also contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. Further, no independent witness or CCTV footage supported the prosecution’s version. Additionally, the petitioner lacked any motive to commit the offense and had clean antecedents. The prolonged detention had severely impacted his dependent family.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued against granting bail, citing the seriousness and gravity of the accusations. The respondent contended that the defenses raised by the petitioner should be tested during the trial and should not be considered at the stage of deciding the bail application. The respondent asserted that the petitioner was actively involved in the heinous crime, and releasing him on bail would be inappropriate.
Analysis of the Law:
The court referred to several judgments to analyze the principles governing the grant of bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, it must consider factors such as the prima facie case, gravity of accusations, severity of punishment, danger of the accused absconding, and likelihood of tampering with evidence. However, the court also emphasized that prolonged incarceration as an undertrial is a crucial factor that must be balanced with the nature of the offense.
Precedent Analysis:
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which highlighted that if a timely trial cannot be ensured and the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration, bail should ordinarily be granted. The Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh emphasized, “If the State or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail.”
Court’s Reasoning:
The court acknowledged that the nature of the allegations against the applicant was grave. However, the court noted the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially the delay in naming the applicant by the parents of the deceased. The court highlighted the absence of independent witnesses and the applicant’s prolonged detention as factors weighing in favor of granting bail. The court observed, “The contradictions in the statements would be tested during the trial, but the benefit of the same cannot be denied at the time of considering the bail application.”
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application, considering the prolonged detention, lack of independent evidence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000/- and two sureties, subject to several conditions, including not leaving the country without permission and not tampering with evidence.
Implications:
The judgment reaffirms the balance between the gravity of allegations and the right to personal liberty. It underscores the importance of ensuring a timely trial and the right of undertrial prisoners to be released on bail when prolonged detention is evident. The decision serves as a reminder to lower courts to weigh constitutional rights against the seriousness of accusations.
