Gruesome manner of alleged murder and prima facie evidence justified denial of bail.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 02/2023 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri for offences under Sections 302, 201, 212, 182, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 279/304A IPC against Deepak, the petitioner’s cousin. During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner, rather than Deepak, was driving the offending car when it struck the deceased, whose body allegedly remained entangled beneath the vehicle and was dragged for approximately 13 kilometres.

The Investigating Officer relied upon five CCTV-footage links, which showed the offending car being handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner occupying the driver’s seat, although his face was not visible at the exact time of the incident.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 1 January 2023; 14 of the 117 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the co-accused were stated to be on bail.

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the testimony of eyewitness Nidhi, CCTV footage, DNA evidence linking flesh found on the car to the deceased, the PCR report, and the petitioner’s refusal to participate in test identification proceedings.

Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail in view of the evidence allegedly connecting him with the driving of the offending vehicle and the gravity of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged custody, the alleged inconsistencies or delayed identification in the eyewitness account, the absence of facial identification in the CCTV footage, and the stage of trial justified the grant of bail.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing regular bail in a case involving Sections 302, 201, 212, 182, 34 and 120B IPC.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the apparent strength of the prosecution material, the gravity and manner of the alleged offence, the petitioner’s alleged role, and the overall factual circumstances of the case.

The Court’s reasoning reflects the principle that, at the bail stage, the Court must assess whether the material placed by the prosecution and the seriousness of the allegations justify continued custody, without conducting a detailed trial on the merits.

The Court viewed the CCTV footage as materially corroborating the prosecution’s case: it showed the offending car being handed to the petitioner and the petitioner occupying the driver’s seat, even though his face was not captured at the precise moment of impact.

The Court also considered the eyewitness Nidhi’s statement that the petitioner and the other occupants were heavily intoxicated, as well as the prosecution’s reliance on DNA evidence, the PCR report and the petitioner’s refusal to participate in identification proceedings.

Although the defence relied on the delayed identification, the absence of facial identification, prolonged custody and the progress of the trial, the Court gave decisive weight to the alleged conduct after the collision—namely, continuing to drive despite the deceased remaining entangled beneath the vehicle for approximately 13 kilometres.

The gruesome manner in which the deceased was allegedly killed and the petitioner’s alleged role therefore persuaded the Court that bail should not be granted.

It held that the gravity and alleged manner of commission of the offence, together with the prosecution material connecting the petitioner to the driving of the offending vehicle, dissuaded the Court from granting bail.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate communication to the petitioner.