Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023: Emphasizes Completion of Investigation, No Risk of Evidence Tampering, and Presumption of Innocence Despite Serious Allegations in Drunken Driving Case

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court emphasized that the applicant has been in judicial custody since November 7, 2024, and the investigation is complete. The court observed that there was no need for further custodial interrogation, as the charge sheet has already been filed. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant has no prior criminal record and there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing the judicial process. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to ensure adherence to the law.

Facts:

1. The incident occurred on November 9, 2024, involving a road accident at Shahdara flyover.
2. The applicant was accused of driving a Mahindra KUV 100, allegedly causing an accident that injured two individuals and resulted in the death of one person.
3. The prosecution alleged that the applicant fled the scene after the accident, as captured in CCTV footage.
4. The applicant was apprehended later at his residence, where he was found under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol content of 274 mg/100 ml.
5. The police claimed that the vehicle was traced to the applicant, and subsequent charges were framed under Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 106 (simple accident) of BNSS, 2023.
6. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, citing alleged harassment by the police and extortion of money during the investigation.

Issues:

1. Whether the applicant’s continued detention was necessary for the investigation or trial.
2. Whether the allegations justified framing charges under Section 105 of BNSS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 106 (simple accident).
3. Whether granting bail posed a risk of evidence tampering or repeat offenses by the applicant.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The applicant alleged false implication, stating that his vehicle was in good condition when handed over to the police, but it was later intentionally damaged to link it to the accident.
2. The applicant claimed he was under mental stress due to personal issues and had been coerced into consuming alcohol by the police to fabricate a case of drunken driving.
3. He argued that additional charges under Section 105 were baseless and added only to pressure his family into paying bribes.
4. The applicant highlighted his clean criminal antecedents and medical conditions, including hypertension and diabetes, as further reasons for granting bail.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant’s release could result in him committing similar offenses.
2. It was argued that CCTV footage showed the applicant fleeing the scene of the accident.
3. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was drunk at the time of the accident, as evidenced by his high blood alcohol content when apprehended.
4. The State argued that the case involved serious offenses, including one death, and releasing the applicant on bail would undermine the investigation.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 governs the conditions for granting bail. The court noted that bail should be granted if the investigation is complete and there is no risk of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding.
2. The court reiterated that detailed evaluation of evidence is not appropriate at the bail stage, as it could prejudice the trial.
3. The substitution of Section 106 with Section 105 required deeper scrutiny, but the court held that such matters should be determined during the trial and not at the bail stage.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to Ishwar Chand v. Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, which held that long incarceration without trial violates the presumption of innocence. It reiterated the principle that bail should not be denied unless there is a risk of tampering with evidence or evading trial. The judgment emphasized that prolonged judicial custody before conviction undermines the rights of the accused.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court highlighted that the applicant was apprehended hours after the incident and found consuming alcohol at his residence. This raised questions about whether he was intoxicated at the time of the accident, a fact that could only be resolved during the trial.
2. The substitution of charges from Section 106 to Section 105 was based on circumstantial evidence, and the court noted that the trial was the appropriate stage to evaluate the merits of this substitution.
3. The court emphasized that the applicant’s clean criminal record, respectable background, and lack of evidence suggesting a risk of tampering or absconding justified granting bail.
4. With the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Conclusion:

The High Court granted regular bail to the applicant with the following conditions:

1. Furnishing a bail bond of ₹35,000 with one surety of the same amount.
2. Regular attendance in court for hearings.
3. Provision of a working mobile number to the Investigating Officer.
4. No communication with witnesses or involvement in criminal activities.
5. Intimation to the court and the police in case of a change of residence.

The court directed the trial court and jail authorities to ensure compliance with the bail conditions.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail should not be used as a punitive measure and highlights the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It emphasizes the need to balance the interests of justice with the rights of the accused, particularly in cases where custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. The ruling also underscores the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and preventing unnecessary pretrial detention.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award: Holds Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrators by Respondent Violated Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act, Ex Parte Proceedings Denied Petitioner a Fair Hearing, and Award Exceeded Contract Value