P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved