In a later administering, the Delhi High Court allowed safeguard to Bhupender @ Rohit, an charged in a 2019 snatching and kill case, after more than five a long time of imprisonment. The case, recorded beneath FIR No. 163/2019 at Police Station Narela, included charges beneath Segments 364, 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The safeguard was allowed in spite of the gravity of the allegations, considering delayed detainment and irregularities in witness declarations.
Case Background
The arraignment affirmed that Bhupender, at the side co-accused people, compellingly snatched the casualty from a showcase in Narela on April 28, 2019, where the expired was helping his mother. The victim's body was afterward found in Sonipat, Haryana, driving to the expansion of Area 302 (kill) to the charges. Bhupender was captured on May 1, 2019, based fundamentally on a co-accused's revelation, in spite of his title not being specified within the starting FIR
Defense Argument
The prosecution's case was based on inconsistent witness testimony, according to the defense, which was lead by Advocate Sarthak Tomar. The applicant had been wrongfully accused, they claimed. The applicant was known by the victim's mother as a neighbor, but the defense pointed out that she had not mentioned him in the original complaint. Furthermore, even though the prosecution's assertions were supported by independent witnesses and CCTV footage, the claimed kidnapping took occurred in a public setting.
The length of Bhupender's incarceration, his lack of financial resources, and his obligations to his dependant family were also emphasized. The defense contended that because the investigation was over and the chargesheet had been submitted, there was no justification for keeping him in detention.
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Mahajan, whereas recognizing the genuine nature of the charges, famous the applicant's five-year imprisonment without the trial making critical advance. The Court pointed out that the inconsistencies within the declarations of key witnesses, counting the guardians of the perished, raised questions almost the quality of the case against the candidate. Moreover, the nonattendance of free certification and the postponed suggestion of the candidate by the victim's father encourage debilitated the prosecution's account.
The Court cited the Supreme Court's administering in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which emphasized that drawn out pre-trial detention encroaches on the basic right to life and individual freedom beneath Article 21 of the Structure. The Court repeated that safeguard ought to be considered when opportune trials are not doable, notwithstanding of the gravity of the offense.
Bail Conditions
The Court granted bail to Bhupender on the following conditions:
Personal Bond of ₹25,000/- with two sureties, one of which must be a family member.
The applicant must not threaten or tamper with any evidence.
He must attend court hearings as directed and not leave the country without the court’s permission.
The applicant must provide his residence address and keep the Investigating Officer informed of any changes.
The Court concluded by clarifying that the observations made in the bail order are not a reflection of the case’s merits and should not influence the trial’s outcome.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Delhi High Court bail abduction murder prolonged detention Article 21 witness contradictions Bhupender @ Rohit.
