Accused is entitled to bail when there is some doubt regarding the genuineness of prosecution’s case: Delhi HC grants bail to man accused of killing his girlfriend who was already married
Justice Amit Mahajan [20-05-2024]

Read Order: NIKHIL RAI HANDA v. STATE OF DELHI [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 2499/2023]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 7, 2024: In a case based on extra-judicial confession, the Delhi High Court has allowed the bail plea of a man who allegedly murdered his girlfriend who was already married to another man.

The incident is of the year 2018 when a PCR call was received regarding the dead body of a female lying at Vatika Wali Road. On receipt of the information, some police officers reached the spot and found the dead body of the victim.During the course of investigation, the victim was identified as Shailja Dwivedi by her husband who informed that she had gone to the Base Hospital for physiotherapy in the morning. He also revealed his suspicion regarding the applicant having committed the crime. The FSL lifted certain exhibits from his car that matched the DNA profile of the victim. 

The applicant allegedly had a romantic affair with the victim from the year 2015 and he was forcing the victim to leave her husband and marry him, however, the victim refused. It was alleged that the applicant killed the victim using a knife and he had also confessed the crime to Ravinder Sharma (PW 6), who was allegedly his other girlfriend. The applicant approached the Delhi High Court by filing an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail in a case registered against him  u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan noted that the allegations in the present case were grave in nature and it was the prosecution’s case that the applicant brutally murdered the deceased due to some discord in their romantic affair

The entire investigation in this case stemmed from the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the applicant to PW6. On this aspect, the Bench said, “It is trite law that an extra-judicial confession ought not to be relied upon unless the same inspires confidence and is corroborated. It is incumbent on the Courts to exercise extra caution while relying upon such extra-judicial confessions.”

The applicant had contended that his presence at the Base Hospital, which is near to the place of incident, couldn't be evidence corroborating the involvement of the applicant in the crime since the applicant’s son was admitted in the said hospital. The said fact was not denied by the prosecution. The Bench further stated, “It is settled law that when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for any other conclusion except for the hypothesis of guilt of the accused person.”

Placing reliance upon Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [LQ/SC/2002/371 ], the Bench said, “It is settled law that in the event of there being even some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to bail.”

The Bench noted that the investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of chargesheet followed by framing of charges and the material witnesses have already been examined by the Trial Court. Noticing that the applicant had already been I'm custody for more than 4 years, it was opined that the applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. “...in the interest of upholding the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has established a prima facie case for the grant of bail”, the Bench said while granting bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000.