29 July 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In a significant development in the ongoing murder trial of Danish Chintu v/s State of NCT of Delhi, the court has granted regular bail to Danish Chintoo, one of the accused in a high-profile case involving serious charges, including murder and attempted murder. This decision comes after the accused spent over six years in judicial custody, raising questions about the impact of prolonged detention on the principles of justice and fairness.

Background:

The case dates back to December 12, 2017, when a violent altercation at Lal Kuan petrol pump led to the stabbing death of Rahul Doodha. The complainant, Tara Chand, accused several individuals, including the petitioner, of being involved in this brutal attack. The alleged motive was linked to a previous legal dispute involving the complainant’s family.

Petitioner's Defense and Arguments:

Danish Chintoo's legal team argued that he was falsely implicated and was not present at the crime scene. They presented evidence, including mobile phone location data, to support their claim. The defense also emphasized that the material witnesses did not identify the petitioner or connect him to the incident, suggesting that his prolonged incarceration without substantive evidence violated his rights.

State’s Stance:

On the other hand, the prosecution highlighted the severity of the charges and the petitioner’s criminal history, which includes multiple cases of robbery, theft, and dacoity. They argued that the recovery of the weapon used in the crime and other incriminating items, such as a black cap and a motorcycle, pointed to the petitioner’s involvement. The state expressed concerns about potential risks if the petitioner were granted bail, including the possibility of him interfering with the trial or engaging in further criminal activities.

Court’s Deliberation:

In reviewing the case, the court noted several key points:

• Witnesses failed to identify the petitioner as being present at the crime scene.
• Recovery of the weapon and other evidence alone was not sufficient to substantiate the petitioner’s direct involvement.
• The petitioner’s extensive time in custody and the lack of substantive evidence against him weighed in favor of granting bail.

The court also considered the potential for a protracted trial, given that many witnesses were yet to be examined. This fact, combined with the petitioner’s previous criminal record, led to the decision to impose strict bail conditions rather than denying bail outright.

Conditions for Bail:

The petitioner was granted bail on the condition that he provides a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and a surety bond of the same amount. Additional conditions include:

• Regular attendance at the trial.
• No contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence.
• Providing a current address and keeping his mobile phone on at all times.

Conclusion:

This decision underscores the court's commitment to balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice. While the petitioner’s previous criminal record and the severity of the charges were taken into account, the court's ruling reflects a nuanced approach to bail, emphasizing fairness and due process in the face of serious allegations. The case continues, with further proceedings set to shed more light on the accusations and evidence presented.