Years Behind Bars Warrant Bail: Delhi Man Granted Relief in Murder Case Due to Trial Delay.


24 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law  

After spending nearly four and a half years in judicial custody, a petitioner accused in a 2019 murder case has been granted regular bail by a Delhi court. The order, passed in a petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), considered the significant delay in the trial proceedings, where only one out of 43 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

The case of Ram Dhar Singh v/s State NCT Of Delhi., stems from the disappearance and subsequent murder of a commercial OLA driver, Shri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, in December 2019. Following a complaint by his son, Shri Vipin Kumar Tiwari, an initial investigation by the local police yielded no immediate results. The case was later transferred to the Anti Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU), Crime Branch, Delhi.

The investigation led to the apprehension of one Rajender Majhi in Madhya Pradesh, who was found in possession of the deceased's mobile phone. Majhi implicated Ashfak Beg, who was already in judicial custody in Madhya Pradesh in connection with another case. Interrogation of Ashfak revealed a conspiracy with the present petitioner, Ramdhar, to hire a commercial vehicle for the purpose of robbery, motivated by financial constraints.


 

 

According to Ashfak's disclosure, on December 2, 2019, he and Ramdhar hired the deceased's Tata Indigo vehicle from Sarai Kale Khan Railway Station under the pretext of traveling to Mathura. They allegedly targeted the driver due to his age, believing he would be easier to overpower. After crossing a toll plaza, they asked the driver to stop, and Ramdhar allegedly attempted to strangulate him with a belt, while Ashfak pressed his mouth. 

When the belt broke, Ashfak reportedly used a muffler to complete the act.

The accused then allegedly stole the driver's purse and mobile phone, disposed of his body in a mustard field near Agra, and took the car to Ramdhar's residence in Gwalior. Two days later, Ashfak allegedly handed over the deceased's mobile phone to Rajender Majhi in Madhya Pradesh. During the investigation, Ashfak reportedly identified key locations related to the crime.

The petitioner, Ramdhar, was arrested on September 6, 2020. During interrogation, he allegedly confessed to his involvement and identified relevant locations. Subsequently, certain documents belonging to the deceased were recovered from his house, approximately nine months after the incident.

The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no direct incriminating evidence against his client, relying on the delayed recovery of documents and claiming that the Call Detail Records (CDR) would show the petitioner was not in Delhi at the time of the offense.

The prosecution countered this, stating that the petitioner's phone was likely switched off to evade location tracking. They also emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses or absconding if released on bail.

While acknowledging the gravity of the charges, the court noted that the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence. The court also took cognizance of the significant period the petitioner has already spent in custody and the slow pace of the trial, with only one witness examined out of 43. The petitioner's satisfactory jail conduct and the absence of any prior interim bail also weighed in the decision.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The bail is subject to several conditions, including:

  • Not leaving the State of NCT of Delhi without prior court permission.
  • Providing and keeping all mobile numbers operational.
  • Not contacting or influencing any prosecution witnesses.
  • Not tampering with evidence.
  • Reporting to the Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin every Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Informing the court and investigating officer of any change in residential address.
  • Appearing before the trial court as required.
The court explicitly clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of considering the bail application and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case during the trial. The order emphasizes the court's concern regarding prolonged pre-trial detention, especially when the trial is proceeding at a slow pace.


Section 483, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023