Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Abduction and Assault Case, Citing Prolonged Incarceration and Weak Evidence.
06 August 2025
Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law
In Swapnil v/s The State N.C.T Of Delhi & Another the accused sought regular bail in a case registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that on February 1, 2021, the accused and his accomplices abducted a man and demanded a ransom. The victim was rescued, and the accused was arrested with ransom money. The victim also claimed that the accused sexually assaulted him and recorded the act on video.
The court considered the following arguments from both sides:
Accused's Arguments: The accused's counsel argued that their client deserved bail because he had been granted interim bail four times and had always surrendered, indicating he was not a flight risk. The counsel also highlighted that the victim had not supported the prosecution's case in his testimony. They emphasized the accused's prolonged incarceration (over two years) and his serious health condition as grounds for bail.
Prosecution's Arguments: The prosecution opposed the bail application, citing the recovery of ransom money from the accused. They contended that one more public witness, Sarfaraz, needed to be examined. The prosecution admitted that this witness's name was not on the original list due to an "inadvertent" error and that they had filed an application to add him.
The court noted the prosecution's failure to produce the case diaries to support their claim about the new witness, which the judge found suspicious. The court expressed concern that the new witness might be a last-minute addition to counter the victim's unsupportive testimony. The court also found the accused's history of surrendering after interim bail a strong indicator that he was not a flight risk. The court also considered the accused's medical records and prolonged time in jail as significant factors.
Final Decision:
Based on the overall circumstances—including the unsupportive testimony of the victim, the long duration of the accused's custody, the questionable timing of the new witness, and the accused's medical condition and history of compliance with bail conditions—the court granted the accused regular bail. He was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount.