InBail Appln. 1795/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court orders release of accused in assault case, says trial likely to take long time
Justice Vikas Mahajan [13-09-2023]

Read Order:Mohd Raj V. State of NCT of Delhi

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 15, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man who was under judicial custody since October 9, 2020 in connection with an assault case.The court observed significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and considered the extended trial duration as key factors.

Briefly stated, the prosecution's case revolved around the death of an individual named Rahul, who was admitted to BJRM Hospital in Jahangirpuri, Delhi in an unconscious state and later had passed away due to his injuries. An eyewitness named Mr. Dharampal, who claimed to be Rahul's uncle, provided critical information regarding the incident. According to Dharampal's testimony, it had become known to their family that Rahul was involved in a romantic relationship, which was not approved of by the girl's family. On October 7, 2020, Dharampal received information from a friend that a group of 4 or 5 individuals were assaulting Rahul. Upon arriving at the scene, Dharampal witnessed 5 or 6 boys from the girl's family physically assaulting Rahul with kicks and punches. When Dharampal inquired about the reason for the attack, the girl's relatives explained that they had tried to reason with Rahul regarding his interactions with their sister, but he had not heeded their warnings. As a result of Dharampal's eyewitness account and identification, the accused, including Mohammad Raj (the petitioner), who was the younger brother of the girl involved, were apprehended during the investigation.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation in the case had been completed, with a chargesheet already filed. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner's continued custody was unnecessary. Additionally, the counsel asserted that since the key witnesses had already been examined, there was no likelihood of the petitioner influencing them or posing any threats to them. Therefore, the counsel requested that the petitioner be granted regular bail.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the testimony of PW1, the girl involved in the case, did not align with the prosecution's case. She had not provided evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was responsible for beating deceased Rahul. Additionally, PW3, who was the cousin of the deceased and had been presented as an eyewitness by the prosecution, stated that the quarrel had already ceased by the time he arrived at the scene. The bench also noted inconsistencies in the testimony of PW2, Dharampal. It appeared that there were contradictions in his statements.

The bench acknowledged that these factors, had the potential to undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case. Nevertheless, the bench emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Trial Court to carefully examine and assess the evidence in detail to form an opinion on the case at the appropriate stage.

The bench further noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since October 9, 2020, and that there was a total of 36 witnesses in the case, but only 4 of them had been examined so far. This suggested that the trial process was likely to be lengthy. Additionally, there was no information presented by the prosecution to indicate that the petitioner had a criminal record. Regarding the prosecution's concern about the petitioner potentially influencing or threatening witnesses if released on bail, the bench pointed out that the key eyewitnesses had already been examined. Therefore, there was no immediate risk of the petitioner interfering with them. Moreover, the bench suggested that any concerns about potential witness interference can be addressed by imposing strict conditions on the petitioner as part of their bail release.

The bench emphasized that the object of judicial custody was not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.

Considering all the circumstances surrounding the case, the bench concluded that the petitioner had presented a valid case for the grant of regular bail.