InCrl. A. 382/2020 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court grants bail to two former police officials convicted in Unnao rape victim's father's custodial death
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma [22-09-2023]

Read Order:Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Ors V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 26, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two former police officials, Ashok Singh Bhadauria and Kamta Prasad Singh, who were convicted for the custodial death of the father of the Unnao rape victim.

In the case at hand, appellant Ashok Singh Bhadauria (appellant no. 1) was found guilty of various offenses, including Sections 120B, 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with a violation of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. Appellant Kamta Prasad Singh (appellant no. 2) was convicted under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, and Section 304 of the IPC, as well as Section 3 of the Arms Act. The present applications were filed, seeking suspension of the appellants' convictions, while the ongoing appeals were pending.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma noted that it is an established legal principle that during the stage of suspending a sentence, the court's role is to primarily assess whether there are any glaring errors or flaws in the conviction order. However, this process does not entail reevaluating or reanalysing the evidence presented in the case.

The bench noted that, in cases of conviction and custody, especially those that do not involve life sentences, the broad parameter of 50% of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for the grant of bail.

The bench further observed that considering the fact that there were pending appeals regarding the sentences already served by the accused individuals, it was on record that an appeal in the case was admitted on July 31, 2020. However, the court has been unable to conduct the hearing for these appeals thus far.

The bench also took note of the fact that the appellants had not misused the interim bail that had been periodically granted to them. According to the Nominal Roll, appellant no. 1 had served a sentence of approximately four years, eight months, and seven days, while appellant no. 2 had served a sentence of approximately four years, five months, and 28 days.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the duration of their incarceration, the court decided to grant bail to both appellants.