High Court dismissed a bail application filed by the accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO. The court rejected bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail application dismissed. Trial court directed to conclude trial within six months of listing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~5
SHAMIM @ MUKESH KUMAR KHANNA ..... Applicant Through: Mr.Gaurav Tyagi, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with SI Arvind Kumar and ASI Raghuraj. Ms.Devika Tulsiani, Mr.S.Banerjee, Advs. for the complainant.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA O R D E R
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
same, she was beaten and threatened by him. She stated that she was aged only 9 years at the time first such incident had taken place. She stated that on 16.05.2021, the applicant took her to the Village of her grandmother at Aligarh where he continued to develope physical relation with her on many occasions. On 22.06.2021, her mother reached at Aligarh and brought her back to their house at Sangam Vihar. The applicant, however, threatened the victim and her mother not to register any FIR. The victim also claims to have an audio recording of the applicant admitting to his misdeeds. The applicant has been in custody since then.
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
registering the FIR. He submits that the FIR is a tool to wreck vengeance in the life of the applicant and is a reaction to the applicant getting married to another.
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
of the offence; (i i ) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and ( iii ) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; ( iv ) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and ( v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.
18. While considering the basic requirements for grant of bail, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi , (2005) 8 SCC 21, this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 31, para 18)
“18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280] and [Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118 ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
or refusal of bail stated in [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC] : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11)
‘11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598] and [Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338)’”
19. The test to be applied for grant of bail was also considered in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 , wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 21-22, para 16)
“16. … The considerations which normally weigh with the court in granting
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
bail in non-bailable offences have been explained by this Court in [State v. Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622] and [Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118] and basically they are — the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
merits of the matter.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MAY 7, 2024 RN/ RP
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 13/05/2024 at 11:09:44
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged with heinous offences involving a child.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the conclusion of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶25
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Amarmani TripathiRelied on¶30
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶31
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶31
Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh RanjanRelied on¶34
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan SinghReferred¶38
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Puran v. RambilasReferred¶38
Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.Relied on¶39
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 · Who else cites this
State v. Jagjit SinghReferred¶43
State v. Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHAMIM @ MUKESH KUMAR KHANNA
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
