Allowed

Arjun Kashyap v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Delhi HC1 Aug 2024BAIL APPLN./2443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner facing charges under IPC Sections 302/120B. Relying on the circumstantial nature of evidence and examination of material witnesses, the court ordered release subject to a personal bond and specific conditions including non-eviction and no contact with complainants.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and complying with five specific conditions regarding location, contact details, and conduct.

Arjun Kashyap Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2443/2024 & CRL.MAs 22560-61/2024

¶4

ARJUN KASHYAP .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bhanu Kaushik, Mr. Faiz Alam, Mohd. Saud Khan and Mr. Mohd. Haider, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with Inspector Dinesh Rana PS Dwarka North, New Delhi.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 01.08.2024

¶12

By way of the present bail application, the petitioner/applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 107/2021 registered under Sections 302/120B IPC at Police Station Dwarka North, New Delhi.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the present FIR came to be registered on 04.03.2021 on a PCR call being received of a dead body being discovered. He submits that the prosecution case is based on the allegations that the applicant was having an affair with the wife of the deceased. He further submits that the applicant was apprehended on 06.03.2021 and in the charge-sheet, the investigating agency has alleged that the deceased was last seen in the custody of the applicant at 9:30 PM in the intervening night of 2/3.03.2021. In this regard, prosecution has also examined PW-3 namely Dinesh Kumar , brother of the deceased. It is his contention that the testimony of child victim that he overheard the conversation between the applicant and his mother is also unbelievable, as

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/08/2024 at 10:44:51

¶15

the reading of the testimony of the child victim would indicate that he is a tutored witness. Lastly, it is contended that all the material witnesses have already been examined and that the applicant is not involved in any other case.

¶16

The application is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that as per the testimony of last-seen witness, the deceased was seen in the company of the present applicant about 3/4 hours prior to the incident since, according to the post-mortem report, the time since death was opined to be one and a half days from the date when the post-mortem was conducted. It is further stated that the child witness has stated that he heard the conversation wherein the present applicant was telling the child’s mother that, “MENE USKA KAAM TAMAAM KAR DIYA..” .

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has cited witness of ‘last-seen’ and eye witness, and both the said witnesses have been examined. It is further informed that six more witnesses are yet to be examined .

¶19

Considering that the material against the present applicant is only circumstantial in nature and all the material witnesses have already been examined, this Court deems it fit that the applicant be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty M.M. and subject to the following further conditions :-

¶20

i) The applicant shall not leave the NCR without prior permission of the concerned Court.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/08/2024 at 10:44:51

¶23

ii) The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer on which he will remain available during the pendency of the trial. iii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court.

¶24

iv) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. v) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information.

¶27

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website forthwith. 10. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and have made the observations only with regard to the present bail application and nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case as the same has been expressed only for the purpose of the disposal of the present bail application.

¶28

DASTI.

¶29

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶30

AUGUST 1, 2024/ rd

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/08/2024 at 10:44:51

Arjun Kashyap v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Kashyap v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Sharma Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi) and Anr.

Asif@ Mohd Asif & Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Raghav Magunta

Mrs. X Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Kiran Paisal & Anr. Vs M/S Ramkripa Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Gurpreet Singh Bhangoo Vs State (Nct of Delhi)