Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused, observing that she played no direct role in the injuring or stabbing of the victim. The Court emphasized that “bail is neither punitive nor preventive” and that incarceration should not be unduly extended without substantive justification. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including the surrender of the passport and restrictions on movement outside the city.
Facts:
The case stemmed from an incident on 12.05.2019, when an altercation took place in Basai Darapur, Delhi. According to the complaint, one of the accused made inappropriate comments about the complainant’s sister, which led to a confrontation between the families. During the altercation, the complainant and his father were assaulted. The complainant’s father was stabbed in the abdomen, and his condition deteriorated, leading to his demise during treatment. Consequently, the charges escalated to include Section 302 of the IPC.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a 30-year-old woman, actively participated by restraining the complainant’s sister and preventing her from helping the injured parties. The trial is ongoing, and all key eyewitnesses have been examined.
Issues:
- Whether the accused’s role in the incident justified the continued denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner posed a threat to the trial’s integrity by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Whether granting bail would be consistent with established principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the matter.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that she had been in custody since 15.05.2019 and had already suffered long periods of incarceration. All key witnesses had been examined, reducing any chance of tampering with evidence. Moreover, the petitioner contended that her role was limited to holding the complainant’s sister and she had no involvement in the fatal stabbing. Given these factors, the continued incarceration was unwarranted.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner’s involvement, though indirect, was crucial to the execution of the crime. They highlighted that the attack was brutal, resulting in the death of a family member. The possibility of the accused fleeing and the risk of obstructing justice were also raised.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court referred to various precedents, including the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014). It reiterated that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the crime, the severity of punishment, and the potential risk to the trial’s integrity.
The Court stressed that while the petitioner was involved in the incident, her role did not directly contribute to the fatal injuries. The Court also considered that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was not likely to abscond, given her stable residence and family ties.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., which delineate the factors to be considered when granting bail, including the prima facie nature of the offense, the gravity of accusations, and the likelihood of the accused influencing the trial. These cases emphasized that the power to grant bail must be balanced with caution, especially in serious offenses, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court observed that while the allegations against the petitioner were serious, her role was limited to restraining the complainant’s sister. The evidence did not suggest that she was involved in the stabbing. The Court found that the petitioner did not pose a threat to society or a flight risk. Thus, denying her bail would not serve any significant purpose.
Conclusion:
The Court granted bail on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. The petitioner is required to report to the police station on specified days and seek prior permission before leaving the city. She is also prohibited from contacting the complainant’s family directly or indirectly.
Implications:
This decision reinforces the principle that bail should not be used as a punitive measure. The ruling reiterates that the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, taking into account not just the nature of the offense but also the specific role and conduct of the accused.
