Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 29/2021 (PS Patel Nagar) for offenses under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC
Source reference: p. 1, para 1The prosecution's case is that the petitioner and a co-accused, Shivam, were contract killers hired by the deceased’s wife and her paramour to murder the deceased
Source reference: p. 2, para 3The petitioner has been incarcerated since June 30, 2021
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the petitioner’s travel from Barabanki to Delhi, telephonic connectivity with co-accused, and the recovery of the murder weapon
Source reference: p. 2, para 5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail based on the weight of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration
Source reference: p. 3, para 9Law Applied
The court examined the requirements for bail in matters involving Section 302 (Murder), Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 34 (Common intention) of the IPC.
Source reference: p. 3, paras 6-7It applied the principle that the strength of circumstantial evidence—specifically telephonic records and recoveries—must be scrutinized at the bail stage to determine if continued incarceration is justified
Source reference: p. 3, paras 6-7Reasoning
The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on three primary pillars: travel records, telephonic connectivity, and the recovery of a knife
Source reference: p. 2, para 5the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to produce Customer Application Forms (CAF) or Call Detail Records (CDRs) to prove the alleged telephonic links between the accused persons
Source reference: p. 3, para 6the court questioned the credibility of the weapon recovery, noting the knife was allegedly found near a metro pillar (an open public space) on July 1, 2021—nearly five months after the offense occurred on February 7, 2021
Source reference: p. 3, para 7the court observed that since all public witnesses had already been examined, there was no immediate risk of witness tampering
Source reference: p. 2, para 4the court held that the evidence presented did not warrant further deprivation of the petitioner's liberty during the trial
Source reference: p. 3, para 9Holding
The court allowed the bail application and directed that the petitioner be released on bail
This was subject to the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
Source reference: p. 4, para 9The court clarified that these observations were made solely for the purpose of the bail application and would not prejudice the final decision of the trial court
Source reference: p. 3, para 8Original Court PDF
Angrej Chaudhary @ Pujari SinghvsThe State (Nct Of Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in