In a recent decision by the Delhi High Court, the bail application in the State vs. Rakesh case has been rejected. Witness testimonies play a crucial role in this case, highlighting the gravity of the situation. Stay tuned for more updates on this legal battle.
Facts
- A case was registered under Section 307 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act at P.S. Bawana.
- The bullet recovered from the victim’s body and other forensic evidence were seized.
- The initial charge under Section 307 of IPC was later replaced by Section 302 upon the victim’s death.
- Police reached the spot based on information received and found an empty cartridge near the victim’s shop.
- The victim was found with a bullet lodged in his head during medical treatment at LNJP Hospital.
- Statements from the victim’s wife, son, and witnesses were recorded during the investigation.
- CCTV footage was obtained and reviewed as part of the investigation.
- The bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. sought bail for offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
Arguments
- Material witnesses have already been examined, but other witnesses are not appearing before the Trial Court for the past six months.
- Argument made about the distance between the victim and the alleged weapon, making it seemingly impossible to have fired or hit the victim.
- State argues that allegations are serious and material witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
- Applicant’s intent is questioned by the State noting the actions taken after the incident.
- Eye-witnesses have identified the applicant and co-accused, stating that the victim was shot at by the co-accused Rakesh.
- Some material and eye witnesses are yet to be examined in the Trial Court.
- Argument made that even if the bullet was fired accidentally by co-accused, it was not intended to kill the victim.
- The respondent argues that the bail application should be rejected.
- The respondent provides reasons for rejecting the bail application.
- It is prayed that the present bail application be rejected.
Analysis
- Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s wife and son, positively identified the applicant and co-accused as the assailants in the shooting incident.
- The witnesses testified that the accused not only shot the victim but also prevented them from seeking medical help.
- Prior to the incident, the accused had threatened and physically assaulted the victim for not providing money for their vices.
- The victim succumbed to his injuries from the gunshot wound inflicted by the accused.
- There are reports of the accused’s family members pressuring the victim’s family to withdraw the case.
- CCTV footage corroborates the presence of the accused at the scene and the shooting incident.
- The post-mortem report confirms that a bullet struck the victim’s head, leading to his death.
- The material witness and the prosecution’s claim regarding the cause of death is supported by the report.
- The seriousness of the offence and threats posed to witnesses are crucial factors in denying bail.
- Given the pending examination of material witnesses and the gravity of the offence, bail is denied at this stage.
Decision
- Pending applications disposed of
- Application for stay granted
- Application for extension of time dismissed
Case Title: RAGHAV @ RAGHI Vs. STATE OF DELHI & ANR. (2024:DHC:4492)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-3804/2023
