Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case After Finding Accused Was Named Only 135 Days Later in Section 164 CrPC Statement
Facts
The petitioner, Vijay @ Lakhan, filed a regular bail application in FIR No. 407 of 2021 registered at Police Station Govind Puri for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC.
The case concerned the death of Hari Kishan, who was allegedly stabbed on 25 June 2021.
As per the status report, after receiving a PCR call that a woman’s uncle had been stabbed, the Investigating Officer reached the spot. There, he met Rakhi, the niece of the deceased. Rakhi stated that Hari Kishan had reached the spot around 7:30 p.m. in a blood-soaked condition and told her that someone had stabbed him with a knife. He then collapsed and was taken to the hospital by his wife Sanju and brother Tara Chand.
The injured was declared brought dead at the hospital.
Initially, no eyewitness was found at the spot. The investigation proceeded against co-accused Ashu and Babu Lal on the basis of witness statements indicating enmity between them and the deceased.
Later, on 9 November 2021, Sanju, the widow of the deceased, approached the police and gave a statement under Section 164 CrPC. In that statement, she claimed that when she heard her husband shouting that he had been stabbed and asked him about the assailants, he replied that Lakhan, Babu and Ashu had stabbed him.
On the basis of this later Section 164 CrPC statement, the present petitioner Vijay @ Lakhan was arrested.
The petitioner had been in custody since 30 September 2022.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a murder case under Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Whether the delayed naming of the petitioner in the widow’s Section 164 CrPC statement was sufficient to justify continued incarceration.
- Whether the absence of an eyewitness and absence of the petitioner’s name in the initial statements weakened the prosecution case for bail purposes.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedents justified denial of bail.
- Whether the apprehension expressed by the deceased’s widow could be addressed through bail conditions.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was innocent and that there was no reliable evidence connecting him with the alleged stabbing.
He submitted that there was no eyewitness to the incident.
He pointed out that Rakhi, the niece of the deceased, was the first person to whom the deceased allegedly stated that he had been stabbed, but even she did not name the petitioner as an assailant.
The petitioner further submitted that the widow of the deceased did not name him in her initial statement under Section 161 CrPC.
It was also argued that Tara Chand, who took the deceased to the hospital along with the widow, also did not name the petitioner as one of the assailants.
The petitioner contended that his name surfaced only in the widow’s Section 164 CrPC statement recorded almost 135 days after the incident.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents.
However, the Investigating Officer did not dispute that in her first statement dated 26 June 2021, the widow of the deceased did not state that the deceased had named the petitioner either as the stabber or as a person accompanying the stabber.
The widow of the deceased appeared in person and expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might cause harm to her.
In response, the petitioner’s counsel assured the Court that the petitioner would not contact any family member of the deceased in any manner.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the ordinary principles governing bail, especially the need to examine whether continued custody was justified on the basis of the material available at that stage.
The Court noted that while the offence alleged was serious, the material against the petitioner had to be examined for bail purposes.
The Court gave importance to the absence of an eyewitness, the absence of the petitioner’s name in the initial version, and the fact that the petitioner was named only after a considerable delay in the Section 164 CrPC statement.
The Court also considered that the petitioner had been in jail since 30 September 2022 and that the trial had almost concluded, with only the Investigating Officer remaining to be examined.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or rely upon any reported precedent.
The decision was based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the delayed naming of the petitioner, lack of eyewitness evidence, the petitioner’s period of incarceration, and the advanced stage of trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that there was no eyewitness to the alleged stabbing.
The Court found it significant that Rakhi, who was the first person to whom the deceased allegedly stated that he had been stabbed, did not name the petitioner as an assailant.
The Court also noted that even in the hospital, nobody named the petitioner in the MLC as the stabber.
The Court further recorded that the widow of the deceased did not name the petitioner in her initial statement dated 26 June 2021. The petitioner’s name surfaced only in her Section 164 CrPC statement recorded almost 135 days after the incident.
On the issue of antecedents, the Court noted that the petitioner was involved in two other cases, but he was already on bail in those cases.
As regards the widow’s apprehension, the Court took note of the petitioner’s assurance that he would not contact any member of the deceased’s family.
Considering the petitioner’s custody since 30 September 2022 and the fact that the trial was almost complete, the Court held that there was no reason to further deprive him of liberty.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the regular bail application filed by Vijay @ Lakhan.
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.
Case Details
Case: Vijay @ Lakhan v. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1731 of 2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Regular bail granted in FIR No. 407/2021 under Sections 302/34 IPC.
