01Facts
The applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 158/2020 (PS Budh Vihar) registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act
p. 1, para 1The FIR originated from a statement by one Deepanshu, alleging that during an altercation, a "tall boy" (allegedly the applicant) stabbed the deceased, Harshdeep Singh
p. 2, para 2The applicant was not named in the FIR and was granted interim bail on 02.05.2025 due to Chronic Myeloid Leukemia
p. 1, para 1.1The State opposed the bail, noting that the applicant was identified during the investigation and trial, and was allegedly involved in a robbery while on interim bail
pp. 2-3, para 4However, the applicant was released in the robbery case following a failed Test Identification Parade (TIP)
p. 3, para 5All co-accused persons have been released on bail
p. 3, para 602Issues
i.Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on medical grounds and due to procedural infirmities regarding his identification
p. 3, para 703Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, alongside Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act
p. 1It further relied on the discretionary principles governing the grant of bail, specifically considering humanitarian grounds for terminal illnesses (Stage IV cancer) and the evidentiary weight of identification procedures, such as the Test Identification Parade (TIP), in cases where the accused was previously unknown to the witness
p. 3, para 7Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25Section 27Section 54Section 59
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302Section 34
04Reasoning
The court balanced the gravity of the offense with the applicant’s deteriorating health and procedural gaps in the prosecution's case.
p. 2, para 1.1 · p. 2, para 3It noted that the applicant suffers from Stage IV cancer (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia)
p. 2, para 1.1 · p. 2, para 3Critically, the court observed that the applicant was not known to the complainant de facto and was not named in the FIR, yet the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a TIP
p. 2, para 3The court found the State’s explanation for this failure insufficient, especially since identification occurred only during the investigation and trial
p. 3, para 7Furthermore, the court dismissed the State's concern regarding the applicant's alleged criminal antecedents during interim bail, noting he was released in the subsequent robbery case due to a failed TIP
p. 3, para 5Considering that co-accused persons were already at liberty, the court determined that further incarceration was unwarranted
pp. 3, para 6-705Holding
The court allowed the application and granted regular bail to the applicant
p. 3, para 8The court held that the combination of the applicant's medical condition and the lack of a TIP justified his release
p. 3, para 7The applicant was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
p. 3, para 8Original Court PDF
Deepak @ JudivsState (N.C.T.Of Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
