Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order  ||  Supreme Court: Certiorari Can Quash a Tribunal Decision That is Grossly Perverse  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Consent is Not Required to Quash a Case Settled With the Victim  ||  Madras High Court: False Posts Against a Minister are Not an Offence Without Intent to Cause Alarm  ||  Delhi High Court: Police Cannot Pick and Choose Among Accused Persons for Arrest  ||  J&K High Court: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 and are Outside Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Calcutta High Court: Third Parties Can Challenge Inaction Against Unauthorised Construction  ||  Madras High Court: Being an Advocate Does Not Mean a Person Cannot Commit an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Reopen Settled Marital Disputes to Avoid Maintenance Liability  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Cannot Deny CRMI Seats to Foreign Medical Graduates Citing Stipend Costs    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved