2024 (3) TMI 1401 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - role attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution is that he was a middleman in the said conspiracy and the only evidence which has been collected by the prosecution against the present petitioner is the CDR of the petitioner which allegedly connects him to the co-accused - HELD THAT - The order granting regular bail to the Ramesh Kakkar who is alleged to be the mastermind of the conspiracy has attained finality whereas it is the prosecution s own case that the petitioner has only acted as an intermediary to carry out the conspiracy. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the alleged assailant/shooter. The role ascribed to the petitioner being lesser than that of Ramesh Kakkar he is entitled to the benefit of parity. It also cannot be ignored that co-accused Ram Phool has also been enlarged on regular bail and it is the prosecution s version that Ram Phool as well as the petitioner have acted as intermediaries to carry out the conspiracy. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has been enlarged on interim bail number of times and the said concession has not been misused by the petitioner. Further all public witnesses have already been examined and only official witnesses are left to be examined. Therefore there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the public witnesses in the event he is enlarged on bail - In respect of the antecedents of the petitioner to be noted that the petitioner has been accused of committing an offence under Sections 482/411/34 IPC registered under at Police Station Saket suffice it to note that the same pertains to the year 2013 and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been recently involved in any other offence. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT has held that the fact that multiple criminal charges are still pending against the accused by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail. Conclusion - This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail pending trial. Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.

2025 (1) TMI 849 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the circumstances of the case.
What is the impact of the evidence presented, including call detail records (CDRs), on the petitioner's alleged involvement in the conspiracy?
Does the principle of parity apply in granting bail to the petitioner, considering the main accused has already been granted bail?
How do the petitioner's previous criminal antecedents affect the decision to grant bail?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Regular Bail

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The application for bail is made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which grants discretion to the court to release an accused on bail. The principles of presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial are relevant here.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the long duration of the petitioner's incarceration, the completion of the investigation, and the fact that the petitioner has not misused interim bail previously granted.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the petitioner has been in custody for over five years, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner has been granted interim bail multiple times without any misuse.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial completion can justify bail, especially when the accused has not misused previous bail opportunities.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued against bail due to the gravity of the offense, while the defense highlighted the petitioner's long custody and lack of direct evidence against him.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to bail, considering the prolonged incarceration and the principle of presumption of innocence.

Issue 2: Impact of Evidence (CDRs)

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: CDRs are generally used as corroborative evidence and not as substantive evidence. The court referenced precedents indicating that CDRs alone cannot form the basis for conviction.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged that while CDRs showed some connections, they were insufficient to substantiate the petitioner's involvement as a substantive piece of evidence.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CDRs indicated calls between the petitioner and some co-accused, but not with the main accused. The location data was not directly incriminating.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that CDRs can only support other evidence and are not conclusive by themselves.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued that CDRs were not incriminating, while the prosecution used them to suggest involvement. The court found the defense's argument more persuasive.
Conclusions: The court concluded that CDRs alone are insufficient to deny bail, especially when the main accused has been granted bail.

Issue 3: Principle of Parity

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of parity suggests that similarly situated accused should be treated alike in bail matters.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the main accused, alleged to be the mastermind, had been granted bail, and the petitioner's role was lesser.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the petitioner's role was that of an intermediary, not the main perpetrator.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle of parity, considering the main accused's bail status.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued for parity, while the prosecution highlighted the petitioner's alleged involvement. The court sided with the defense.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be granted bail based on parity with the main accused.

Issue 4: Previous Criminal Antecedents

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Previous criminal charges can influence bail decisions but are not determinative. The Supreme Court has held that pending charges alone cannot justify bail denial.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted the petitioner's previous charge from 2013 but found no recent offenses.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the lack of recent criminal activity as a factor in favor of granting bail.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that past charges, especially old ones, should not unduly prejudice bail decisions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution cited past charges, while the defense argued their irrelevance to the current bail application. The court agreed with the defense.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner's past charges do not bar bail, especially given the lack of recent offenses.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The CDR's of the petitioner can only be used as supporting or corroborative piece of evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction."
Core Principles Established: The principles of presumption of innocence, parity in bail decisions, and the limited evidentiary value of CDRs were reinforced.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the long incarceration, lack of direct evidence, and the principle of parity.

The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention and circumstantial evidence.

← Previous Next →