Regular bail application in a murder case where the applicant allegedly assaulted the victim, who later died. The court found eyewitness testimony, post-mortem findings, criminal history, and witness intimidation during prior interim bail against bail; medical grounds were held manageable by jail authorities. Bail was denied.
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.
$~2
JASPAL SINGH @ MONTY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anuradha Kaushik, Mr. Shanu Bhagel, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with Ms. Shehnaz Kha, Advocate along with Insp. Amit, PS BHD Nagar Insp. Vikas Malik, PS Model Town Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Mr. Angad Singh, Ms. Isha Baloni, Advocates for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 02.05.2025
1 “BNSS”
2 “Cr.P.C.”
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
2.1. On 20th July, 2021, upon receiving a PCR call vide DD No. 75A and 78A, ASI Jeet Singh, accompanied by HC Girish Chandra, proceeded to the scene of the incident at House No. 3/3, Double Storey, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. Upon arrival, it was ascertained that the victim, Vinod Kumar Chaubey, involved in the altercation, had already been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical treatment. ASI Jeet Singh made efforts to locate eyewitnesses at the spot, however, none could be found.
2.2. ASI Jeet Singh then proceeded to Hindu Rao Hospital, leaving HC Girish Chandra at the spot. At the hospital, he found that the victim was undergoing treatment under MLC No. 2034/21. Although the ASI tried to obtain the victim’s statement, the attending doctor declared him unfit to give a statement.
2.3. On inquiry, it was revealed that the victim had been referred to Safdarjung Hospital. On 21st July, 2021, ASI Jeet Singh visited Safdarjung Hospital and met the son of the victim, Prem Kumar (the Complainant), who was also an eyewitness to the incident. His statement was recorded.
2.4. In his statement, Prem Kumar alleged that on 20th July, 2021, around 9:00 P.M., he was at home in Vijay Nagar, when the victim was on his way from work to home. Near their residence, the Applicant, a known miscreant in the locality, stopped the victim and began assaulting him. The Complainant rushed to save his father, and saw the Applicant kicking, punching, and throwing his father to the ground, while shouting: “Vinod Chaubey, you have become very arrogant; today I will finish your arrogance.”4 In an intoxicated state, the Applicant continued to strike the
3 “IPC”
4 Translated copy of the FIR, as annexed with the petition
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
victim on his head, eyes, and stomach. The Applicant warned the Complainant to take his father away, threatening that if they were seen again in the locality, he would kill them. The Complainant somehow managed to rescue his father and took him to Hindu Rao Hospital, from where he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. On the basis of this statement, the present FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, and the Applicant was arrested.
2.5. During the investigation, ASI Jeet Singh prepared a site plan based on the location identified by the Complainant, and attempted to trace eyewitnesses by examining nearby CCTV cameras. However, no CCTV footage could be retrieved from the vicinity, and no eyewitnesses were found.
2.6. The victim was discharged from the hospital on 24th July, 2021, with doctors advising 6-7 months of home care for recovery. While ASI Jeet Singh attempted to record the victim’s statement, he remained medically unfit. However, the statement of the victim’s wife, Geeta Devi, was recorded. She corroborated the Complainant’s version and alleged that the Applicant had assaulted her husband. Consequently, Section 307 IPC was added to the case.
2.7. Subsequently, the victim’s condition worsened and he was readmitted to Safdarjung Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 31st July, 2021. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307 IPC was converted to Section 302 IPC.
2.8. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was determined to be cranio-cerebral damage resulting from antemortem injury sustained on the head, which was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
to cause death.
3.1. There is no incriminating material on record to establish the Applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. The FIR was lodged at the behest of the Complainant with mala fide intent, and in a conspiracy hatched in connivance with certain police officials.
3.2. At the time of admission, the victim’s injuries were superficial in nature, with no external injuries noted on his body. He was discharged from the hospital in a stable condition and was placed on medication. The victim’s demise occurred nearly a week after his discharge, thereby breaking the causal link between the alleged assault and the subsequent death.
3.3. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 2021. The investigation in the present case is complete, and the chargesheet stands filed. In such circumstances, the continued detention of the Applicant will not serve any fruitful purpose.
3.4. The Applicant was previously granted interim bail on medical grounds. During this period, he fully complied with all conditions, did not approach or influence any witnesses, and surrendered in accordance with the court’s directions. Therefore, there is no apprehension of witness intimidation or tampering with evidence.
3.5. The Applicant further seeks bail on the basis of medical grounds, both for himself and his wife.
3.6. The Applicant has been acquitted in the criminal cases cited by the
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
Prosecution. Specifically, FIR No. 149/2009 was quashed, and the Applicant was acquitted in FIR Nos. 1312/2015, 328/2016, and 314/2017.
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
condition can be adequately managed by the jail authorities. Similarly, concerning the illness of the Applicant’s spouse, the verification conducted by the Investigating Officer indicates that her condition is not lifethreatening and does not warrant any indulgence by the Court.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 2, 2025/ab
BAIL APPLN. 511/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 01/07/2025 at 00:18:15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant charged under Section 302 IPC should be granted regular bail despite consistent eyewitness testimony and his criminal antecedents.
Whether medical grounds of the applicant and his spouse justify release on bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaspal Singh @ Monty
State of NCT of Delhi
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
