NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Mazid In JC Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 DHC 5841) - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Aug 2024)

Extra judicial confession is considered as a weak type of evidence and is only used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to other evidence on record

MANU/DE/5115/2024

Criminal

The present application has been filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is submitted that, the Petitioner does not have any criminal record. He, therefore, urges the Court to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

Undisputedly, the case of the prosecution is not premised on an ocular account. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance which has been pressed into service is an extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused/petitioner.

It is trite law that extra judicial confession is considered as a weak type of evidence and is only used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record. The probative value of the testimonies of the witnesses, as well as, their credibility will though be examined by the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage but an overview of the statements of the material witnesses tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for granting regular bail to him.

At this stage, it cannot be overlooked that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused/petitioner. That apart, the petitioner is already in custody for almost 4 years and the conclusion of trial does not appear to be anywhere in sight as the prosecution has cited 23 witnesses, out of which only 08 have been examined till date.

It is also not the case of the prosecution that, the Petitioner has a criminal record or there is possibility of the Petitioner fleeing from justice in the event he is enlarged on bail. On the contrary, the Petitioner did not abscond and remained available for investigation at all relevant times. Further, all the material witnesses have already been examined, therefore, does not appear to be any apprehension that the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence in case he is enlarged on bail. The Petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail pending trial. Petition stands disposed of.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved