Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Witness Non-Identification and Prolonged Custody.


01 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In Aman Azad v/s State Of NCT Of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused, Deepak, in a 2017 murder case, citing the sole eyewitness's failure to identify him in court and his prolonged incarceration. The decision was made in a petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 483 BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 291/2017, registered at P.S. Kanjhawala under Sections 302/307/34 IPC.


The prosecution's case alleged that on July 18, 2017, the petitioner and three associates, traveling in a car, obstructed the path of the complainant, Pawan Kumar, and his brother Pradeep Kumar (the deceased). An altercation reportedly ensued, during which Pradeep Kumar was shot and Pawan Kumar sustained a thigh injury.

   

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the prosecution's case relied solely on the testimony of Pawan Kumar (PW-12). During his examination, PW-12 notably failed to identify the petitioner in court. Even when the Public Prosecutor suggested that he was intentionally not identifying the petitioner, the witness denied it.

While no weapon was recovered from the petitioner in this specific case, a supplementary charge sheet mentioned that a country-made pistol was recovered from him in another FIR (No. 299/2017). Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports indicated that the empty cartridge from the crime scene and the bullet recovered from the deceased's body were fired from the weapon found with the petitioner in the other case. However, the defense argued that conviction cannot be based solely on the FSL report, especially when the eyewitness failed to identify the accused.

The petitioner has been in custody since August 8, 2017, for approximately seven years. Although there are other cases against him, he is on bail in most of them, except for one other murder case (FIR No. 204/2017). The counsel for the petitioner further noted that co-accused Devender Sonu Praveen, who allegedly fired the fatal shot, has already been granted bail by the High Court on January 28, 2025.

The Court, while acknowledging that a detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage, observed that the sole eyewitness (PW-12) did not identify the petitioner. It noted that the probative value of the FSL report would be assessed by the trial court in light of the eyewitness's testimony. The Court also affirmed that the pendency of other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground for denying bail, especially given the petitioner's long incarceration.

Considering the "overall circumstances," including the petitioner's long custody, his non-identification by the sole eyewitness, and the fact that a co-accused involved in the fatal shot has been granted bail, the Court deemed it sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions such as informing the trial court of any change in address, keeping mobile numbers active, not indulging in criminal activity, not contacting witnesses, and reporting to the Investigating Officer on the second and fourth Saturdays of each month. The Court clarified that its observations are only for the purpose of the bail application and do not reflect on the merits of the case.


Section 439., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 307., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860