Delhi High Court calls murder probe “completely botched up,” grants bail after delayed FIR and overnight investigation

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 718/2022, registered at PS Mandawali for an offence under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused Hema killed the deceased.

The Court noted that police were informed of the death on 4 December 2022, but the FIR was registered only on 7 December 2022; the investigation was then completed by midnight that day.

The applicant had been in custody since 8 December 2022.

The prosecution relied on alleged custodial confessions, last-seen evidence, DNA traces on a ligature, and telephone connectivity.

The Court noted that no test identification parade had been conducted, all public witnesses had been examined, and only 10 of 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the applicant’s continued detention was warranted in light of the material relied on by the prosecution and the circumstances of the investigation.

2. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to the duration of custody and the stage of trial.

The application concerned an allegation under Section 302 IPC.

The Court assessed the case for the limited purpose of deciding bail, considering the material against the applicant, the period of custody, and the progress of the trial; it made clear that its observations were not to constrain the trial court’s independent assessment at the final stage.

The judgment cites no specific bail provision or precedent.

The Court considered the investigation’s unexplained delay in registering the FIR and its rapid completion thereafter, as well as the IO’s failure to produce the arrest file when requested.

It found the alleged last-seen identification weak for bail purposes because the witness did not previously know the applicant, no TIP was conducted, and the witness identified him for the first time in court.

The DNA traces on the ligature established, at most, its use but did not connect the applicant to it; the Court also noted the applicant’s prolonged custody and the trial’s progress.

These observations were expressly confined to the bail determination.

It also directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the Jail Superintendent.