Allowed

Sumit v. State Gnct of Delhi

Delhi HC4 Feb 2025BAIL APPLN./844/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for murder under Section 302 IPC. No eyewitness; the last-seen witness died before testifying; petitioner's DNA did not match nail clippings of deceased. Custody of nearly two years with trial far from conclusion. Bail allowed with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail in FIR No. 96/2023 PS Anand Parbat: personal bond Rs 10,000 with one surety, plus conditions on passport surrender, contact number, address, appearance, and no witness contact.

Sumit Vs State Gnct of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 844/2024

¶4

SUMIT .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP SI Neeraj Kumar, PS Anand Parbat

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶11

O R D E R % 04.02.2025

¶12

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC seeking grant of bail in F.I.R No. 96/2023 under Section 302 of IPC registered at Police Station Anand Parbat.

¶13

As per the F.I.R, a call was received and a GD No.: 0097A entry was made regarding the death of the deceased Jitender Kumar Sharma.

¶14

The call was made by the wife of the deceased, namely Ms. Babli, who was residing separately for the last 3 years.

¶15

Subsequently, the police arrived and found the body of the deceased, Jitender Kumar Sharma.

¶16

After investigation the petitioner was arrested on the statement of Mr. Itwari Lal @ Mall S/O Mr. Jagdish, who stated that he, the petitioner and the deceased, Jitender Kumar Sharma, were consuming liquor on the day of the incident but Itwari Lal left the spot around 6/6:30 p.m, leaving the petitioner and his father alone.

¶17

Additionally, Itwari Lal @ Mall also stated that the petitioner came to his house at 8:00 p.m and confessed that he had strangulated his

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 06/02/2025 at 14:38:09

¶20

father.

¶21

Hence the petitioner was arrested on the last seen evidence.

¶22

As per the Nominal Roll, the petitioner has undergone 1 year 11 months and 23 days of custody.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶24

In the present case, there is no eye witness to the incident. Mr. Itwari Lal @ Mall, who was the witness to the last seen evidence, has already expired and has not tendered his evidence.

¶25

The DNA examination also shows

¶26

“the male DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits „3a & 3b‟ (Nail clippings of deceased Jitender Sharma) is not similar with male DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit “4” (Gauze cloth piece of accused Sumit).”

¶27

Hence the DNA profile of the petitioner does not match with that of the deceased.

¶28

The petitioner has been in custody for almost 2 years and only 14 out of 34 witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood that the trial would conclude in the near future.

¶29

For the said reasons, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in F.I.R No. 96/2023 registered at Police Station Anand Parbat subject to the following terms and conditions :-

¶30

a. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with 1 surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court;

¶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 06/02/2025 at 14:38:09

¶33

b. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned court and if the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial court;

¶34

c. The petitioner shall furnish to the IO concerned the cell phone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched on at all times;

¶35

d. The petitioner will furnish his permanent address to the concerned IO and in case he changes his address, he will inform the IO concerned;

¶36

e. The petitioner shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the proceedings in pending cases, if any;

¶37

f. The petitioner shall appear in Court on every date of hearing unless exempted;

¶38

g. The petitioner shall not communicate with, or come into contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

¶39

Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶40

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶41

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶42

FEBRUARY 4, 2025/sp

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 06/02/2025 at 14:38:09

Sumit v. State Gnct of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit v. State Gnct of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Singh Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

State Vs Vijay Goel

Aman Chanderbhan Yadav@ Chauva Pauva Vs the State Delhi Admn Delhi

Lajina Begum Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mahesh Pandey Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Satish Kumar & Anr. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.