[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Jagdish Sharma @ Jaggi vs State Nct Of Delhi on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 23rd April, 2025
Pronounced on: 20th May, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024
JAGDISH SHARMA @ JAGGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shobit Dimri, Mr. Keshav
Sethi, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS GEETA
COLONY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with Ms. Deepika Deshwal, Mr.
Deepak Tomar, Mr. Rajesh Dahiya,
Mr. Jaideep, Ms. Meenakshi Rana,
Ms. Sharlee Garg, Mr. Rohit
Chaudhary, Ms. Nandita, Advocates
along with Insp. Sanjeev Kumar, PS
Punjabi Bagh and Insp. Sanjay
Prakash Bhatt, PS Sonia Vihar Mr.
Alok Bhachawat, Mr. Ishan Jain,
Advocates for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 439 of the Code of Criminal1
“BNSSSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 1 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in FIR No. 578/2018 under Sections
302, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi.
Brief Factual Background
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. On 14th October, 2018, a PCR Call was received at the P.S. Punjabi
Bagh from the Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute regarding a person who
had been brought in dead. The call was recorded vide DD No. 15A, and
preliminary inquiry was entrusted to SI Rajpal. Upon reaching the hospital,
the Investigating Officer collected MLC No. 7873/18 pertaining to one Nitin
Gupta, who had been declared brought dead. The statement of the
deceased’s father, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, was recorded on the spot.
2.2 Mr. Gupta stated that on 13th October, 2018, his son Nitin left home
for the office at around 11 AM, but around 4-5 PM he returned home from
Chattarpur Temple and offered sweets to his mother. Thereafter, he left from
home again and returned around 11:45 PM. On his return, Nitin lay down on
the sofa without saying much. When his mother asked about his
whereabouts, he did not respond and went to watch television in his
bedroom.
2.3 About 10-15 minutes later, Nitin called out for his father complaining
of pain and to seek his assistance to lie down. He showed his father his
broken fingers and stated that he had been beaten severely on his back.
When Pradeep Gupta suggested calling his other son – Varun Gupta for
help, Nitin initially refused fearing that the atmosphere would get tense, but
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 2 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
eventually agreed due to the extent of his discomfort. Varun was called, and
both family members attempted to get further details, but Nitin was initially
reluctant to explain. The family members then insisted that they call the
police, however, the deceased Nitin requested them not to do so.
2.4 Upon being repeatedly questioned about the cause of his injuries,
Nitin disclosed that he owed a sum of ₹12,50,000/- to one Jagdish @ Jaggi
(the Applicant), who, along with Rajiv @ Bille and Sanjeev @ Bablu, had
brutally assaulted him with sticks at Jagdish’s office. He further cautioned
that the said individuals were extremely dangerous.
2.5 Varun Gupta, brother of the deceased Nitin, removed Nitin’s T-shirt
and saw several bruises on his back which had turned blue in colour,
suggesting severe beatings with a stick or rod. When Nitin expressed
difficulty standing, Varun helped him use the bathroom. After returning
from the bathroom, Nitin collapsed. His family members then picked him up
and made him lie down on the bed.
2.6 Pradeep Gupta then contacted one of Nitin’s friends, Pankaj Dawar, to
ascertain what had transpired. However, Pankaj stated that he had no
knowledge of any such incident and that, at the time when he last saw Nitin,
he appeared to be in normal condition.
2.7 Thereafter, Pradeep and Varun helped Nitin lie down in his room and
changed his clothes, as he was experiencing considerable pain. Nitin was
repeatedly asking for cold water and ice, and despite the air conditioner
being on, he was perspiring heavily.
2.8 Pradeep Gupta then contacted Aggrasen Hospital to request an
ambulance but was informed that the hospital lacked sufficient staff to
provide one. The family thereafter resolved to take Nitin to the hospital in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 3 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
their own vehicle. However, as Nitin had by then become unconscious, they
were unable to move him. Subsequently, an ambulance was called from
Action Balaji Hospital, which arrived at approximately 3:00 AM. Nitin was
placed on a stretcher and transported to the hospital, where he was declared
“brought dead”.
2.9 Based on the statement of Pradeep Gupta, FIR No. 578/2018 was
registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh and investigation was initiated. The body of
the deceased was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangolpuri, Delhi and
the postmortem was conducted and recorded under PM No. 958/18. As per
the Post Mortem Report, the doctor opined the cause of death to be
haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple bruises, due to blunt object
impact, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries
were noted to be ante mortem in nature.
2.10. The Applicant, Jagdish @Jaggi along with the other co-accused were
arrested on the same day – i.e., 14th October, 2018. During interrogation, the
Applicant disclosed that he had extended a loan of ₹12.5 Lakhs to the
deceased Nitin Gupta, of which only ₹3.70 Lakhs had purportedly been
repaid, and that no further payment was forthcoming. Owing to this
grievance, the Applicant stated that he, along with co-accused
Sanjeev@Babbu and Rajeev@Bille, physically assaulted the deceased and
also retained his scooty. At the instance of the Applicant, a Pointing Out
Memo was prepared in respect of the first floor of Flat No. 477, Pocket-3,
Paschimpuri, where the assault allegedly occurred. He further led the police
to a nearby park from where a broken wooden stick (danda), wrapped in
black tape, was recovered and seized vide Seizure Memo dated 14th October,
2018. The said stick was thereafter forwarded to the mortuary at Sanjay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 4 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
Gandhi Hospital for expert opinion by the doctor who had conducted the
postmortem examination. The medical opinion stated: “After going through
PM 958/18 and examining the weapon of offence, opinion is – injuries
mentioned in PM report are possible with the weapon examined or similar
one”.
2.11 Subsequently, CCTV footage from a camera installed near the first
floor of the alleged place of incident, pertaining to the fateful evening of 13th
October, 2018, was obtained. The footage initially shows the Applicant
entering the flat at 8 PM along with co-accused Sanjeev and deceased Nitin.
Two minutes later, Sanjeev is seen leaving the flat, and at 8:16 PM, he
appears to be carrying a wooden stick. Footage from another camera depicts
both Sanjeev and Rajeev riding a motorcycle, driven by Sanjeev with Rajeev
visibly holding the stick. At 9:27 PM, another person identified as Anil, a
tenant residing at the top floor of the building is seen entering the flat.
Pankaj Dawar (friend of the deceased) and one person identified as Mukesh
are also seen entering the flat at 9:41 PM. Thereafter, at 11:10 PM, the
deceased Nitin, along with Pankaj, Mukesh and Anil are seen leaving the
flat. The CCTV footage reveals that the condition of the deceased Nitin was
not good and he was walking down the stairs supporting himself by holding
the banister.
2.12. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the
accused, and trial commenced before the Sessions Court. Of the 32
prosecution witnesses cited, 18 have been examined so far.
2.13 As per the SCRB Record, the Applicant has prior involvements in 07
cases, including the present FIR. The details of the SCRB Record are as
follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 5 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
S.No FIR No. Under Section Police Remarks
Station
1. 0526/1994 61/1/14 Excise Act Punjabi Bagh Acquitted
03.05.1997
2. 861/1994 307/34 IPC Punjabi Bagh Acquitted
15.07.1998
3. 722/1995 302/207 IPC Punjabi Bagh Convicted for
life
4. 0116/1996 25/54/59 Arms Act Punjabi Bagh Acquitted
5. 0941/2001 25/54/59 Arms Act Punjabi Bagh Acquitted
29.08.2008
6. 0965/2004 307 IPC Punjabi Bagh Acquitted
01.02.2008
7. 0578/2018 302/34 IPC Punjabi Bagh Pending Trial
Contentions raised by the Parties
3. Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Senior Counsel for the Applicant, urges the
following grounds for seeking bail:
3.1. The case of the prosecution primarily rests on the testimony of three
purported eye-witnesses – Pankaj Dawar, Mukesh Kumar, and Anil Vaid, all
of whom have been examined before the Trial Court. None of these
witnesses have supported the prosecution’s version. In particular, they have
categorically denied witnessing any incident of assault by the Applicant or
the co-accused persons upon the deceased Nitin.
3.2 It is admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased left the
Applicant’s around 11:00 PM and was seen descending the staircase on his
own. The CCTV footage corroborates that Nitin was ambulatory and
conscious at the time, and later he returned home unaided. Even if the
prosecution’s version is assumed to be true, it is submitted that no case
under Section 302 IPC is made out.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
3.3 The prosecution places reliance on statements allegedly made by the
deceased to his father (Pradeep Gupta) and brother (Varun Gupta), wherein
before going unconscious, the deceased named the Applicant and co-
accused as the persons who beat him. However, the conversation forms part
of the chargesheet and reflects that Pradeep Gupta himself described Nitin’s
condition as not in conscious state of mind. He stated that “Hamey To
Samajh Nahi Aa Rahhi Per Sudh Mein Nahi Hai” indicating that the
deceased was not in a conscious state of mind at around 12:30 AM on 14 th
October, 2018, when the alleged conversation took place. Pradeep Gupta
further admitted that, at that time, the deceased was unable to identity who
exactly had beaten him up. Moreover, Pankaj Dawar – one of the eye
witnesses stated that he left the deceased near his home at the night on 13 th
October, 2018, in a state of good health.
3.4 In the initial statements made by the family members of the deceased
– i.e., Pradeep Gupta, Varun Gupta and Sudha Gupta, which were recorded
pursuant to DD Entry No. 15A, there is no mention of any accused person.
However, nearly 21 hours after Nitin returned home, their supplementary
statements introduced the names of the Applicant and co-accused. No
explanation has been furnished as to why this information was withheld
during their earlier interactions with police, or why it finds no mention in the
inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. or in the contemporaneous
PCR form.
3.5 The afore-noted fact is also corroborated by the PCR form wherein it
is categorically mentioned that the father and brother of the deceased met
the police officials in the Hospital and upon their asking, the witnesses
disclosed that the deceased Nitin told them that he was given beatings by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 7 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
“someone”, not naming any person specifically.
3.6 As for the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, a wooden stick
(danda), the same was recovered from an open plot/park, reportedly in
broken condition. The recovery was made without following the safeguards
under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., rendering it procedurally tainted and
evidentiary value suspect.
3.7 The MLC of the deceased records injuries only on non-vital parts of
the body, namely left arm, left shoulder, left scapular region, right shoulder
and right scapular region. The prosecution’s case that the cumulative effect
of these injuries resulted in death lacks clarity in establishing homicidal
intent.
3.8 The pattern of injuries, coupled with the fact that the deceased was
allowed to leave the premises alive and unaided, undermines the allegation
of any intention to cause death. If the intention of the Applicant was indeed
to cause death, he would not have allowed the deceased to leave his office
and be taken back to his home by Pankaj Dawar and others. It is the
prosecution’s own case that the Applicant’s underlying motive was recovery
of a substantial financial debt owed by the deceased. In such a scenario,
attributing an intention to cause death would be illogical and
counterintuitive, as it would defeat the very objective by permanently
extinguishing the prospect of repayment. Reliance in this regard is placed on
Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab4; Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of
Haryana5 and Panchiah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka6.
3.9 The criminal antecedents of the Applicant cited by the prosecution to
4
AIR 1987 SC 1151
5
AIR 1993 SC 2119
6
AIR 1994 SC 963
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 8 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
oppose the bail are of limited relevance in the present context. The
Applicant stands acquitted in all the previously registered cases, save for
FIR No. 722/1995 at P.S. Punjabi Bagh. In that case as well, the conviction
has been assailed before the Apex Court, wherein the Court has grant bail to
the Applicant vide order dated 16th February, 2024. In view of the foregoing,
no adverse inference can be drawn against the Applicant at this stage solely
on account of his past antecedents.
3.10 The Applicant did not abscond in the present case and in fact, he
voluntarily joined the investigation. He was arrested on 14 th October, 2018
and has remained in custody ever since, save for the period during which he
was enlarged on interim bail by this Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Applicant has thus undergone nearly five years of incarceration as an
undertrial. Despite the passage of considerable time, the trial is progressing
at a slow pace. Only 19 or 20 out of 34 witnesses have been examined so
far. In such circumstances, continued pre-trial detention of the Applicant is
punitive, particularly when undue delay appears evident.
3.11 The Applicant ought to be granted the benefit of the settled legal
principle, time and again emphasised by courts – that Grant of Bail is a Rule
and Denial of Bail is an Exception. In support of this proposition, reliance is
placed on Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan7; Dataram Singh v. State
of U.P.8 and Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra9.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the Complainant (deceased Nitin’s
father) supplementing the submissions advanced by the State, opposes the
present bail application on the following grounds:
7
Special Leave to Appeal Crl.No. 6505/2023, decided on 6 th October, 2023
8
(2018) 3 SCC 22
9
(2024) 9 SCC 813Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 9 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
4.1 When the deceased Nitin returned home on the fateful day of his
demise, in an injured condition, his father called Pankaj Dawar to inquire
into the circumstances which led to this condition. Pankaj allegedly
informed the Complainant that he had met Nitin around 6:00 PM that
evening and that the deceased was in good health at that time. It is only after
repeated inquiry from his family members that the deceased himself
disclosed that he had been assaulted by the present Applicant and his
associates. As per the CCTV footage retrieved during investigation, in
addition to the three accused – Jagdish @Jaggi, Sanjeev@Babbu, and
Rajeev@Bille, three other individuals, namely Pankaj Dawar, Mukesh, and
Anil, are also seen entering the premises where the incident allegedly
occurred. When these individuals were initially summoned by the police for
questioning, they denied any presence at the scene. However, upon being
confronted with the CCTV footage, they admitted to having been present but
claimed to have played no active role, stating they merely stood by as
passive onlookers.
4.2 In view of the above it is evident that when the deceased’s father
spoke with Pankaj later that night around 12:30 AM to ascertain what had
transpired, he gave a false account, stating that Nitin had left in a healthy
state earlier that evening. This conduct, suggests that these three persons
were not merely witnesses but were complicit in the assault, and yet the
prosecution has chosen to array them as prosecution witnesses rather than
co-accused in the present case. In this regard, the Complainant has filed an
application under Section 358 of the BNSS before the Trial Court, seeking
initiation of proceedings against the said individuals for their alleged role in
the incident. It was expected that these individuals, who were present inside
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 10 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
the room and had witnesses the entire incident of the deceased being brutally
beaten up for hours, would not support the case of the prosecution and in
fact, turn hostile during trial. Nonetheless, merely because a witness has
turned hostile, does not negate the entirety of their testimony and certain
aspects of their testimony, which shed light on the prosecution’s version, can
be considered by the Court.
4.3 There exists a prima facie case against the aforementioned three
persons, and in the event the Complainant’s application under Section 358
BNSS is allowed and in case the Applicant is released on bail, there is a
strong apprehension that he may attempt to influence these persons or
otherwise tamper with the evidence. Except for the testimonies of the
aforementioned three individuals, the depositions of all other prosecution
witnesses are incriminating against the Applicant and other co-accused.
Therefore, no justifiable ground exists for granting bail to the Applicant at
this stage.
4.4 Moreover, several prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, and
there is a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, the Applicant
may attempt to threaten or influence the remaining witnesses or exert
pressure on the family members of the deceased.
4.5 In light of the seriousness of the alleged offence, the potential for
witness intimidation, and the previous involvements of the Applicant
highlighted by the prosecution, it is urged that no case for grant of bail is
made out at this stage.
Analysis
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 11 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
behalf of the Applicant, the State, and the Complainant. At the outset, it
must be underscored that the allegations against the Applicant herein pertain
to the death, allegedly caused by the physical assault perpetuated at the
hands of the Applicant and the co-accused persons. The incident occurred
late at night on 13th October, 2018, and in the early hours of the morning on
14th October, 2018, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The nature of
the offence, as reflected in the Post Mortem Report, involves multiple
bruises caused by a blunt object, which the doctor opined were sufficient, in
the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. The cause of death was
determined to be haemorrhagic shock resulting from such injuries.
6. According to the prosecution, the deceased was assaulted at the
Applicant’s office and returned home in a visibly injured condition, where
he subsequently collapsed and was declared dead at the hospital. Although
the CCTV footage does not capture the actual assault occurring inside the
room, it nonetheless establishes the presence of the Applicant, the co-
accused, and the deceased within the premises at the relevant time. The
sequence of footage, showing the Applicant entering the premises followed
by the deceased, and thereafter the deceased exiting in a visibly distressed
and weakened state, prima facie supports the prosecution’s narrative. The
relatively short interval between the alleged incident and the deceased’s
death lends further probative weight to this account. Additionally, the
recovery of a wooden stick/danda at the instance of the Applicant, coupled
with the forensic opinion that the injuries recorded in the Post-Mortem
Report are consistent with such a weapon, prima facie reinforces the chain
of circumstances forming the prosecution’s case.
7. The Applicant has urged that the deceased, at the time of disclosing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
the names of his alleged assailants to his father and brother, was not in a
fully conscious state of mind, and therefore, his statements should not be
treated as reliable. However, whether the deceased was in a fit state to make
such statements, and the evidentiary value to be attached to the statements
made in such an alleged state, are matters that go to the heart of appreciation
of evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the bail stage. These
are issues that must be left for evaluation during trial, based on the overall
evidentiary record.
8. The Applicant further contends that there was an unexplained delay of
several hours in naming the accused to the police, despite the family having
been in contact with law enforcement earlier in the day. At this stage, such a
delay by itself does not displace the prima facie case made out by the
prosecution. It is well settled that the impact of any such delay must be
assessed alongside the broader factual context and corroborating material,
and cannot form the sole basis for grant of bail in a case of this nature.
9. As regards the Applicant’s submission that there was no intention to
cause death and that alleged beatings, if any, were only meant to coerce
repayment of a debt, this Court finds it premature to express any opinion on
the probative strength of such claims. At the stage of considering a bail
application, the Court is not expected to weigh the evidence as if conducting
a mini-trial.10 Rather, the limited inquiry is whether there exists prima facie
material to connect the accused to the alleged offence11, and whether
custodial detention is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the trial
10
See: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar& Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497; See also Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia, 2020 (2) SCC 118
11
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 13 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
process12. The argument that the injuries of the deceased were not intended
to be fatal and that the death was unanticipated, raises factual questions
which are best examined during trial, after the entire body of evidence has
been adduced and tested through cross-examination. Any definitive finding
on the nature or effect of the injuries at this stage would risk pre-judging the
case and may prejudice either side. Accordingly, the Applicant’s plea that
the offence falls outside the scope of Section 302 IPC cannot be accepted at
the present stage.
10. While it is true that three eyewitnesses [Pankaj, Mukesh, and Anil]
have not supported the prosecution’s case during trial, this alone cannot tilt
the balance in favour of the Applicant at this stage. It is well settled that the
evidentiary value of hostile witnesses can only be determined upon
conclusion of trial, particularly when there is a possibility that the witnesses
may have turned hostile under duress13. If a witness turns hostile, the
prosecution can still use those portions of their testimony that are supportive
of their case14. This ensures that relevant evidence is not disregarded simply
due to a witness’s change in stance.
11. The Complainant has, in fact, filed an application under Section 358
of the BNSS seeking further investigation against these three witnesses,
asserting that they were present during the alleged incident and may be
complicit in the crime. The outcome of that application is yet to be
determined. Given this context, the effect of their testimony, whether they
can be relied upon or whether their hostility undermines the prosecution’s
12
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; See also: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
13
Rajesh Yadev v. State of U.P. (2022) 12 SCC 200
14
Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 3 SCC 378
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 14 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
case, can only be evaluated at the stage of final adjudication, not while
considering bail. Pertinently, the prosecution case is not solely dependent on
the testimony of these three witnesses. It draws substantial support from
other incriminating material, including the CCTV footage, the Medico-legal
and Post Mortem Reports, the forensic opinion linking the weapon of
offence to the injuries, and the recovery made at the instance of the
Applicant. In this context, the overall strength of the prosecution case must
be evaluated holistically and not through the narrow lens of three witnesses
turning hostile. The impact of their testimony, or lack thereof, is a matter to
be assessed at the conclusion of trial and cannot serve as the basis for grant
of bail at this stage.
12. The Applicant’s contention that the beatings were inflicted only on
non-vital parts of the deceased’s body and were not intended to cause death
also does not hold much weight at this stage. The law is clear that under
Section 300 Thirdly of IPC, if the injuries inflicted are sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is not necessary to prove that
there was indeed an intention to “cause death”; the only thing that needs to
be proved is that there was an intention to inflict those bodily injuries that
were found to be present on the victim and that such injuries were sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death15. In this regard, it is
important to note of the Post Mortem Report, wherein the presiding doctor
has opined that “Cause of death is due to haemorrhagic shock as result of
multiple BRUISES due to blunt object impact sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course of nature all injuries are antemortem in nature”.
15
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 37; See also: Parkash Chand v. State of H.P.
(2004) 11 SCC 381
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 15 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
13. The Court is mindful that the Applicant has remained in custody for
nearly five years as an under-trial, and such prolonged incarceration does
raise a concern under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the
right to a speedy trial. However, the Court also notes from the status report
received from the Trial Court through the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, it is indicated that the matter is still at the stage of prosecution
evidence. Out of the 34 listed witnesses, approximately 18-19 have been
examined. The delay, appears to be partly attributable to the complexity of
the case and the number of accused and witnesses involved. In any case,
delay alone cannot override the gravity of the charge, particularly where the
death of a young man is alleged to have occurred due to a violent beating
involving blunt weapons.
14. Taking all of the above into account, the nature of the allegations, the
stage of trial, the status of eyewitness testimonies, and the evidence on
record, this Court is not persuaded to grant bail to the Applicant at this
juncture. However, considering the period already undergone in custody, it
is imperative that the trial proceeds without further delay.
15. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. The concerned
Trial Court is requested to make all reasonable efforts to conclude the trial
expeditiously, as possible.
16. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for necessary
information and compliance.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 20, 2025
as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 4764/2024 Page 16 of 16
Signing Date:20.05.2025
20:27:57
[ad_2]
Source link