InBail Appln. 3610/2022 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court rules tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses cannot be taken lightly; denies bail to murder accused
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela [13-09-2023]

Read Order:Shashank Jadon V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 14, 2023: The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail application of a murder accused, considering the accused's behaviour while in judicial custody particularly his phone calls to witnesses who later turned hostile during the trial.

The present application had been filed by the applicant/accused, seeking regular bail in an FIR, registered under Section 302 of the IPC, which was subsequently transferred to CBI.

According to the prosecution's case, the incident began with the registration of an FIR by one Mr. Dharam Veer Singh. He reported the murder of his son, against unknown individuals. Subsequently, the father of the deceased filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, requesting that the investigation be transferred to the CBI. After nearly a year of investigation, the CBI concluded that a conspiracy had been formed among the applicant, Shashank Jadaun, Pankaj Kumar alias Pankaj Raghav (now deceased), and Manoj Kumar to rob vehicle in order to obtain quick money. This alleged conspiracy led to an attempted robbery of the deceased's new Fortuner car, during which gunshots were fired, resulting in the untimely death of the deceased. The CBI claimed to have located a car believed to have been used in the crime, and subsequently, the applicant, Shashank Jadaun, was arrested along with co-accused Manoj.Top of Form

The single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao took into account the applicant's conduct while in judicial custody, considering its significance in the bail application. It was noted that the fact that the applicant had made calls to PW-7 and PW-14 had not been denied. Moreover, it was considered significant that out of the three calls made to PW-14, the last call from Dasna Jail was made on 21.10.2022, and PW-14 was examined on the very next day, during which he suddenly turned hostile. This was regarded as significant at the present stage of the proceedings.

The bench further noted that, according to the prosecution, four calls were made to PW-7 during the period when he was being examined, and he also turned hostile after some time. This sequence of events was deemed significant and raised questions that could not be dismissed as mere coincidences.

The bench remarked, “Tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses can definitely not be taken lightly by Courts as the same tend to interfere with the administration and delivery of justice.”

Considering the factors and observations mentioned above, the present bail application was dismissed.