Learned Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to an applicant who had been in judicial custody for charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since 2018.
The Learned Judge noted that a disclosure statement is inadmissible as evidence when no concrete evidence is recovered from an applicant during the course of an investigation. It was highlighted that the charge sheet filed did not provide information on the involvement of other co-accused individuals in this case, which the Court deemed as ‘highly unprofessional’ on the investigating officer’s part.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the applicant who had been in judicial custody since November 8, 2018. The applicant along with other co-accuseds had been charged for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/149 IPC.
The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated by a police inspector based on the disclosure statement of one of the co-accused with no supporting evidence against him.
Contentions of the Parties:
The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the co-accused's disclosure statement, without any concrete evidence against him. The applicant highlighted that the mobile phone recovered during his personal search, identified as crucial evidence, belonged to the real brother of another co-accused.
The State opposed the bail application asserting that the recovery of the mobile phone during the applicant's personal search linked him to the crime scene through call records and location data. It was argued that the applicant was actively involved in concealing facts related to the murder, emphasising his awareness of the offence and his failure to report it to the police.
Observations by the Court:
Considering the lack of substantial evidence and the discrepancy regarding the ownership of the mobile phone, the court granted regular bail to the applicant. The Court imposed conditions, including a personal bond, non-influence of witnesses, regular court appearances, and restrictions on leaving Delhi without the Court’s permission.
The Court observed that “The Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to find as to how the said mobile phone of said Deepak (co-accused) came in the possession of present applicant. No effort was made to detect the duration/time period for which the said mobile phone remained in the possession of said Deepak or the present application.”
The Court expressed concern over the unprofessional conduct of the Investigating Officer, highlighting attempts to mislead the Court with false information and causing delays in the proceedings. The observed discrepancies in the investigation were communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for information.
The Decision of the Court:
Considering the lack of substantial evidence and the discrepancy regarding the ownership of the mobile phone, the Court granted regular bail to the applicant.
Case Title: State vs. Rajesh@Raj and Ors.
Coram: Learned Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (West)
Case no.: CNR No. DLWT01-01-002323-2019
Advocates for the Applicant: Sh. Ajay Gautam, Ld. Counsel
Advocates for the State: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
