Delhi HC Rejects Murder Accused’s Regular Bail, Grants 3-Week Interim Bail To Treat Possible Retained Metal Object In Knee

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), in a case registered under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), with the chargesheet also invoking Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that, during a quarrel over motorcycle parking, the petitioner assaulted the complainant with a wooden plank and participated with a co-accused in the incident in which the deceased was fatally shot.

The petitioner disputed his role and relied, among other things, on alleged inconsistencies in witness testimony, his period of custody since 2 November 2021, and the trial’s progress; the State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s alleged active participation, other pending cases, and jail misconduct.

The trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage, with 14 of 44 witnesses examined.

The petitioner also sought interim bail for medical treatment of a left-knee condition involving a possible retained foreign body.

The applications were considered under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, which provide the relevant jurisdiction for granting bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 302/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act; the Court considered whether the petitioner’s alleged acts, viewed with those of the co-accused, disclosed active participation and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.

At the bail stage, the Court need not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, but must consider the nature of the accusations, prima facie material, the accused’s attributed role, and the severity of the potential punishment.

The Court also relied on Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, for the principle that bail discretion must be exercised judicially, with due regard to criminal antecedents and the potential effect of releasing an accused on society.

The Court found that the complainant attributed to the petitioner a specific role: being present with the co-accused, participating in the quarrel, exhorting the co-accused to finish the matter permanently, and assaulting the complainant.

In the Court’s view, these allegations supported a prima facie case of active participation and common intention in the same transaction as the fatal shooting; the petitioner’s challenges to witness credibility and the distinction between his role and the shooter’s were matters for trial.

The Court also considered the gravity of the offences, the petitioner’s four other pending FIRs, a conviction in another case, and seven recorded incidents of jail misconduct, and concluded that prolonged custody did not, in these circumstances, warrant regular bail.

Separately, the verified medical records showed a history of left-knee pain and swelling and a possible retained foreign body, justifying temporary release for treatment.

It granted interim bail for three weeks from the date of release, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like amount, restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses, and surrender to the Jail Superintendent by 4:00 p.m. on expiry of the period; the petitioner was also required to provide his treatment documents upon surrender.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and should not affect the trial.