Bail Granted in Circumstantial Murder Case.


03 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In Mohd Azim Nadaf v/s State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi., the accused, incarcerated since November 19, 2020, in connection with FIR No. 647/2020 (offences under Sections 302/120B/201/34 IPC), has been granted bail. The prosecution's case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The incident involved a person, later identified as rickshaw puller Sheikh Alam, falling onto an iron grill ceiling from a rooftop. Bloodstains and a handwritten note listing four names were found on the roof. The prosecution alleged that the accused, suspecting his wife of illicit relations with these four individuals and having prior involvement in other cases, conspired with co-accused Habib and Nandan Kumar to frame them. They reportedly lured Sheikh Alam (with whom Habib had an existing feud) to the rooftop, where they consumed alcohol, assaulted him with a stone, wrote the implicating note, and then pushed him off the roof.

 
 

The defense argued that only three out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and none have presented evidence against the accused. They further contended that there's no direct evidence linking the accused to Sheikh Alam's death.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the gravity of the crime, which involved not only murder but also an attempt to falsely implicate innocent individuals. However, the prosecutor admitted that the only evidence against the accused is the recovery of the stone used in the assault and the deceased's rickshaw.

Crucially, it was admitted that no occupants of the building were interviewed to ascertain if they saw the accused, co-accused, or deceased going to the rooftop. Additionally, no fingerprints were collected from the staircase, stone, or any other part of the building to connect the accused to the crime. The court noted that the accused's disclosure statement would only be admissible to the extent of his knowledge about the stone's location.

Considering the nature of the circumstantial evidence and the likely lengthy trial, the court found no reason to continue depriving the accused of his liberty. Consequently, the bail application was granted, and the accused is to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court clarified that these observations would not influence the trial's final outcome.


Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 201., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860