InBail Appln. 559/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court grants bail to woman accused of murder; says confessional statement made to police must be proved with cogent evidence during trial
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela [13-09-2023]

Read Order:Varsha @ Rahul Singh V. State NCT of Delhi

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 14, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of murder, citing lack of evidence. The court noted that the statements of the witnesses did not specifically implicate the applicant in the crime, and that the confessional statement made by the applicant to the police was to be proved during trial with cogent and corroborative evidence.

The present application was filed for seeking regular bail, in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The present case involved an incident on 05.09.2020, in which the victim was shot by two unidentified assailants. The State's APP argued that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offenses can be clearly established. The APP presented a disclosure statement made by the applicant under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which allegedly contained information about the shooter, who was hired by the applicant to commit the offense.

The single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined the statements of various public witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., including that of PW-3, who was the mother of the deceased. Upon closer scrutiny, it was noted that PW-3's statement primarily emphasized allegations against the co-accused Simran, and regarding the present applicant, her statements contained only general and vague allegations. The bench further reviewed the statements of other witnesses and concluded that, when read as a whole, these statements also revealed only general allegations of the applicant being in the company of co-accused Simran, with no specific or active role attributed to the applicant by any of the witnesses.

The bench also acknowledged the emphasis placed by the APP on the confessional statement of the applicant, which was intended to establish a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased by hiring a sharpshooter who was allegedly paid money for carrying out the shooting. However, the bench pointed out that confessional statements made before police officials cannot be considered at this stage.

The bench also addressed the argument made by the APP regarding the post-incident conduct of the applicant, specifically the destruction of her mobile phone. The bench noted that this act alone, without any other corroborative or electronic evidence, may not necessarily implicate the applicant. It was considered that such actions could be the result of a person anticipating a false implication and possible arrest, which might prompt them to take such measures.

Thus, the bench stated that at the present stage, neither the statements of witnesses nor any corroborative evidence implicating the applicant had been presented.

In light of the factors and observations made above, the applicant was granted bail.