In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the anticipatory bail application in the case of The State vs. Applicant/Accused was dismissed. The court’s decision highlights the significance of custodial interrogation in a case involving serious offences under Sections 302/323/34 IPC. The prosecution’s case, supported by witness statements and CCTV footage, underscores the gravity of the situation. This summary delves into the intricacies of the legal proceedings and the reasons behind the court’s decision.
Facts
- The police officials recorded the statement of the complainant, Gyani Ram, and lodged the FIR.
- An application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was filed for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302/323/34 IPC.
- Other accused persons were arrested during the investigation, naming the present applicant/accused.
- The police found out that the injured person had been declared dead at the hospital.
- On 27.03.2024, a PCR call was made about a quarrel, leading the police to the incident where the injured was taken to BJRM Hospital.
- The deceased, Shivam, was caught from behind by the applicant/accused, and a co-accused attacked him with an ice breaker on the chest, resulting in his death.
Arguments
- The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record and is willing to cooperate with the investigation.
- The prosecution relied on witness statements but ignored supportive CCTV footage.
- CCTV footage shows the applicant was merely holding a motorcycle at the incident scene.
- The Investigating Officer’s inconsistent statements and misinterpretation of evidence indicate malicious intent to falsely implicate the applicant.
- Counsel argues that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case.
- The applicant/accused is clearly visible in the CCTV footage collected.
- The name of the applicant/accused is mentioned in the FIR.
- Witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. support the prosecution’s case.
- The investigation is in early stages, and custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is crucial.
- The offence is serious and resulted in a person’s death.
- The anticipatory bail application is strongly opposed by the State and should be dismissed.
Analysis
- Shivam, the deceased, intervened in a dispute between his brother Vicky and Suresh by slapping Suresh.
- After initial altercations, Golu and Suresh initially left but later returned to threaten the complainant over Shivam’s actions.
- The incident escalated on 27.03.2024 when Sunil and Pawan, nephews of the complainant, were involved in a quarrel in the street.
- The complainant arrived at the scene with his son Aman and brother Khoob Karan to find Golu, Suresh, Harish, Rohit, Arvind, and Suman beating his sons and nephews.
- Shivam was stabbed in the chest during the altercation, leading to his death.
- The applicant/accused was identified in CCTV footage throughout the quarrel.
- Medical records indicate puncture wounds on the chest of the deceased.
- The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application due to the need for the applicant’s custodial interrogation.
- The judgment clarified that it did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
- The prosecution’s case involved an initial dispute on 25.03.2024 between Golu, Suresh, and the complainant’s nephew Vicky.
Case Title: ARVIND Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:3876)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-1664/2024
