Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Double Murder Case: Cites Five Years of Incarceration, Lack of Direct Evidence, Trial Delays, and Parity with Co-accused

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicant, primarily relying on the following reasons:

1. Prolonged Incarceration: The applicant had been in custody for over five years without substantial progress in the trial.
2. Weak Evidence: The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, with no direct or scientific evidence linking the applicant to the crime.
3. Delays in Trial: Out of 83 witnesses, only 14 had been examined, making the conclusion of the trial unlikely in the near future.
4. Parity: Other accused, including the main conspirators, had already been granted bail, strengthening the applicant’s claim for bail.

Facts of the Case

1. Discovery of Bodies:
   • On March 8 and 9, 2019, the decomposed bodies of a married couple were found in a drain.
   • Post-mortem reports revealed they had been smothered to death.
2. Allegations:
   • The daughter of the deceased alleged that her sister (Davinder Kaur) and her partner (Prince Dixit) killed their parents over a property dispute.
   • The applicant was accused of participating in the murders for monetary compensation of ₹50,000 and helping dispose of the bodies.
3. Evidence Against the Applicant:
   • Statements by the main accused implicated the applicant.
   • Jewellery belonging to one of the victims and a mobile phone were allegedly recovered from the applicant’s house.

Issues Identified

1. Violation of Right to Speedy Trial: Whether the applicant’s prolonged detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the evidence presented justified continued incarceration.
3. Parity in Bail: Whether the applicant should be granted bail in light of similar relief given to co-accused.

Petitioner’s (Applicant’s) Arguments

1. False Implication:
   • The applicant argued that his involvement was based solely on unverified statements by the main accused, which were contradictory.
   • No scientific or direct evidence linked him to the crime.
2. Contradictions in Evidence:
   • Call Data Records (CDR) indicated the applicant was in Lucknow during the crime.
   • CCTV footage from the crime scene depicted individuals not matching the applicant’s description.
   • Forensic findings did not support claims that the jewellery recovered belonged to the deceased.
3. Trial Delays:
   • After five years, only 14 of 83 witnesses had been examined, with the trial likely to take several more years.
4. Parity:
   • The main accused, who were alleged to have played a greater role, were granted bail. Co-accused Diwakar, charged with assisting in the murders, was also released on bail.
5. Presumption of Innocence:
   • The applicant emphasized that he had no prior criminal record and deserved bail, especially since he had already been incarcerated for over five years.

Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments

1. Seriousness of the Crime:
   • The prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in a heinous double murder.
2. Prima Facie Evidence:
   • The recovery of jewellery and a mobile phone belonging to the deceased allegedly linked the applicant to the crime.
   • CDR showed frequent communication between the applicant and the main accused during the crime period.
3. Potential Flight Risk:
   • Due to the gravity of the crime, the prosecution expressed concerns that the applicant might flee if granted bail.

Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed relevant legal principles to decide the matter:

1. Presumption of Innocence and Right to Bail:
   • Citing Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court noted that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes on personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Circumstantial Evidence:
   • The case against the applicant was based solely on circumstantial evidence, with no forensic or direct links. The Court emphasized the need for higher scrutiny in such cases.
3. Right to Speedy Trial:
   • The Court reiterated that delays in the trial violated the applicant’s constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.
4. Parity with Co-accused:
   • Other accused, who were more directly implicated, had already been granted bail. This weighed heavily in the applicant’s favor.

Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to key Supreme Court judgments:

1. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra: Courts should avoid detailed scrutiny of evidence at the bail stage.
2. Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan: Bail should be granted when prolonged incarceration occurs due to trial delays.
3. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab: Excessive trial delays can render incarceration punitive, violating Article 21.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
   • The prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence was insufficient to justify continued detention.
   • Recovery of jewellery and CDR data did not conclusively implicate the applicant.
2. Delay in Trial:
   • With nearly 70 witnesses yet to be examined, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
3. Parity with Co-accused:
   • The main accused, who allegedly masterminded the crime, had been granted bail, making the applicant’s continued incarceration unjust.
4. Constitutional Rights:
   • The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention violated the applicant’s right to life and liberty under Article 21.

Conclusion

The Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the following conditions:

1. Furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and a surety.
2. Regular appearances before the trial court and investigating authorities.
3. Restrictions on leaving the country without prior permission.
4. Prohibition from contacting prosecution witnesses.

Implications

1. Judicial Emphasis on Personal Liberty: The case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the right to a speedy trial.
2. Scrutiny of Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment highlights the need for robust evidence to justify prolonged incarceration.
3. Setting Precedents for Bail: The decision underscores that bail should be granted when delays occur, even in serious cases.

This detailed reasoning ensures that justice balances the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the allegations.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Public Status of Vahivat Road: Dismisses Claims of Exclusive Ownership, Citing Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm in Favor of Respondents