Court criticizes police for absence of investigating officers during bail proceedings; emphasizes protection of individual liberty.
In a noteworthy judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Sandeep alias Chaman, an accused in a criminal case involving firearms, citing insufficient evidence linking him directly to the alleged crime. The judgment, delivered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberty and the necessity for the police to adhere to procedural requirements during bail hearings.
The case, registered under FIR No. 490/2025 at PS Wazirabad, involved charges under Section 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution's case revolved around an incident on July 1, 2025, when the complainant reported hearing gunshots outside his home and identified co-accused Shibu wielding a pistol. The complainant later identified Sandeep as an accomplice based on CCTV footage.
However, the court found the evidence against Sandeep to be vague and unconvincing. The CCTV footage, when reviewed, did not clearly depict the accused, and the complainant's initial complaint failed to mention Sandeep's presence at the scene. The court highlighted that mere presence near the crime scene does not constitute sufficient grounds to curtail a person's liberty.
Justice Kathpalia strongly criticized the local police for not ensuring the presence of the Investigating Officer (IO) or the Station House Officer (SHO) during the bail proceedings, which could have clarified the evidence presented. The absence of key police personnel during such crucial hearings was deemed a recurring issue, prompting the court to direct that a copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action.
The court's decision also referenced a previous bail order for co-accused Ishant, who was granted bail under similar circumstances. Justice Kathpalia emphasized that liberty should not be compromised based on inadequate evidence and procedural lapses by the investigating authorities.
In conclusion, Sandeep was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ?10,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The judgment reinforces the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and emphasizes the judiciary's role in upholding individual rights against arbitrary detention.
Bottom Line:
Grant of bail - Accused cannot be deprived of liberty based on vague evidence, such as unclear CCTV footage or lack of direct mention of accused's involvement in the complaint.
Statutory provision(s): Section 109(1)/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959
Sanddep @ Chaman v. State of NCT Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2839813
