Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Attempted Murder Accused: “Absence of Grievous Injuries, Lack of Weapon Recovery, and Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Progress Justify Release Under Article 21 of the Constitution”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the applicant, accused of attempted murder under Sections 307/323/34 of the IPC, citing the absence of grievous injuries, lack of weapon recovery, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress. The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and noted that the co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹15,000 with one surety and adhere to strict conditions, including not tampering with evidence, keeping a functional mobile number, and attending every court hearing.

Facts of the Case

The case arises from an alleged incident on January 26, 2024, in Shastri Nagar, Delhi, where the complainant and his friend were allegedly attacked by the applicant and his associates. The complainant claimed that the applicant attempted to stab him with a knife but ended up causing injuries to his head and face. The attack reportedly happened after the complainant refused to give money for alcohol.

Sequence of Events:

1. The complainant and his friend went to Chunni Wala Park, Shastri Nagar, where the applicant and his associates were consuming alcohol.
2. The applicant demanded money from the complainant for purchasing more alcohol.
3. Upon refusal, the applicant, along with the co-accused, assaulted the complainant and his friend using fists and sticks.
4. The complainant alleged that the applicant attempted to stab him in the neck, but he managed to turn, resulting in injuries to his head.
5. The medical report (MLC) indicated only simple injuries caused by a blunt object, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that a knife was used.
6. The complainant and his friend were discharged from the hospital the same day.

The applicant was arrested on January 28, 2024, and remained in custody for over a year. His previous bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on December 23, 2024.

The co-accused, Sunil @ Ganja, was granted bail on December 9, 2024, because he had already spent 10 months in custody and had no prior criminal record. The court had observed that keeping him in jail for an extended period was unnecessary since the trial would take time. The applicant, however, remained in custody despite similar allegations against him.

Legal Issues Before the Court

1. Does the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant justify the charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder)?
2. Should the applicant be denied bail based on his past criminal case, despite being acquitted?
3. Does the applicant pose a danger to society if released on bail?
4. Does prolonged incarceration without trial progress violate the applicant’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution?
5. Does the granting of bail to the co-accused create grounds for granting bail to the applicant?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Applicant’s Defense)

The applicant, through his counsel, argued for bail on the following grounds:

1. No Evidence of Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC Not Applicable)

• The medical report (MLC) showed only simple injuries caused by a blunt object, not a knife.
• If a knife was truly used, there would have been grievous injuries, which was not the case.
• Since there was no life-threatening injury, Section 307 IPC was wrongly applied, and Section 323 IPC (causing simple hurt) should apply instead.

2. Lack of Evidence: No Recovery of Knife or Other Weapons

• The police did not recover any blood-stained knife, danda, or any other weapon.
• This weakened the prosecution’s claim that the applicant attacked the complainant with a knife.

3. The Co-Accused Was Granted Bail, So the Applicant Deserved Similar Treatment

• The co-accused (Sunil @ Ganja) was granted bail in December 2024 on the grounds that he had already spent 10 months in custody and had no prior criminal history.
• Since the allegations against both the applicant and co-accused were similar, keeping the applicant in jail while releasing the co-accused was unfair.

4. Delay in Trial Violates Right to Speedy Trial (Article 21 of the Constitution)

• The prosecution had cited 18 witnesses, but only one had been examined in over eight months.
• The trial was not likely to conclude anytime soon.
• Keeping the applicant in custody without trial progress violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

5. Socio-Economic Background of the Applicant

• The applicant was 22 years old, from a poor family, and was a financial supporter of his parents.
• His prolonged incarceration was affecting his family’s financial well-being.
• He undertook to cooperate with the trial, abide by all conditions, and attend all court hearings.

6. Reliance on Precedents Favoring Bail

The applicant relied on:

• Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court) – where bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration and lack of conclusive evidence.
• Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court) – which held that extended pretrial detention violates fundamental rights.

Respondent’s Arguments (Prosecution’s Case)

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing:

1. The Applicant Had a Criminal Background
   • The applicant was previously accused under Section 302 IPC (murder).
   • Even though he was acquitted, this showed his criminal propensity.
2. The Applicant Might Re-Offend if Released
   • The applicant was involved in a serious attempt to murder case.
   • If released, he might commit similar offenses.
3. The Trial Was Already in Progress
   • The charges were already framed, and the prosecution evidence was being recorded.
   • Bail should not be granted at this critical stage of the trial.

Analysis of the Law

• Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): Requires proof that the accused intended to kill the victim and committed an act that could have caused death.
• Section 323 IPC (Causing Simple Hurt): Covers cases where injuries are minor and not life-threatening.
• Supreme Court Precedents: Emphasize that bail should be granted unless there is a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or a serious threat to society.
• Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates this right.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The injuries sustained were minor, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that the applicant attempted to murder the complainant.
2. No weapon was recovered, which weakened the evidence.
3. The co-accused, who had a similar role, was already granted bail, so the applicant could not be treated differently.
4. Trial delay was a violation of the right to a speedy trial.
5. The applicant’s socio-economic background and willingness to comply with bail conditions supported his release.

Conclusion

The court granted bail and imposed conditions, including:

• ₹15,000 bail bond with one surety.
• No tampering with evidence.
• Regular attendance in court.
• Providing a functional mobile number to the Investigating Officer.

Implications

1. Prevents misuse of Section 307 IPC in cases where injuries are minor.
2. Reaffirms the principle of granting bail unless there is substantial evidence justifying incarceration.
3. Upholds the fundamental right to a speedy trial, discouraging indefinite pretrial detention.
4. Encourages courts to treat co-accused in similar circumstances equally.

This judgment underscores the importance of fair trial rights and the necessity of granting bail in cases with weak evidence and undue delays.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Directs Grant of Notional Senior Time Scale Benefits for Retired CRPF Officers: “Denying Such Benefit While Granting Increments Would Create an Artificial Distinction”