The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a 2020 murder case registered at PS Bawana, while directing that appropriate action be taken against the then SHO for concealing material evidence from the Court.
Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the bail plea in FIR registered under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The applicant had been in custody for nearly four years and eight months.
The Court noted that the prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including “last seen” testimony, recovery of a weapon, and recovery of the deceased’s mobile phone.
A significant development during the hearing was the Court’s finding that a crucial portion of the deposition of the prosecution’s key witness had been concealed in the status report filed by the police. While the report annexed the initial chief examination of the witness, it omitted the subsequent deposition recorded after CCTV footage was played in court. In that later testimony, the witness expressed inability to identify the accused. The prosecution did not dispute the correctness of this submission.
The Court also found discrepancies in the alleged recovery of the weapon. The pistol said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused was of .32 bore, whereas the FSL report indicated that the bullets retrieved from the deceased’s body were of .315 bore. The weapon matching the recovered bullets was not traced to the accused.
With regard to antecedents, the State submitted that the accused was involved in four other cases. However, it was clarified that he had been acquitted in two cases, one had been compounded, and in the remaining pending case he had already been granted bail.
Taking into account the prolonged custody and the nature of the evidence, the Court held that there was no justification to further curtail the applicant’s liberty. Bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned for appropriate action against the erring officials and clarified that its observations would not prejudice the parties at the stage of final arguments.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Raj Singh Phogat, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State
Ms. Tanya Agarwal and Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocates for R-2
