In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to an individual accused in a 2018 murder case, simultaneously reprimanding the police for their failure to identify the body recovered in the case. The court's decision underscores concerns about investigative lapses and the prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners without substantial evidence.
The case revolves around the recovery of an unidentified body in 2018, with the accused being arrested based on circumstantial evidence and the disclosure statements of co-accused individuals. The prosecution alleged that the accused was involved in the abduction and subsequent murder of the deceased. However, the court noted that the disclosure statements, which formed the crux of the prosecution's case, were inadmissible as they were not corroborated by independent evidence.
Further scrutiny revealed that the only tangible link between the accused and the crime scene was a mobile phone recovered from him. The investigating officer (IO) claimed that call location data placed the accused at the scene of the crime. However, the court found that the mobile number was registered under a different individual's name, and there was no concrete evidence to prove that the accused used the phone during the commission of the alleged offense.
The court expressed its dismay over the police's handling of the investigation, highlighting that the IO had provided misleading information and failed to conduct a thorough probe. Notably, despite the recovery of a pistol allegedly used in the crime from another individual named Deepak, the police did not interrogate him, nor did they explore his potential involvement. This omission, coupled with the lack of effort to identify the deceased, pointed to a "highly unprofessional" investigation.
Emphasizing the principle that bail is neither punitive nor preventive, the court observed that the accused had been in custody since November 2018, amounting to over five years of incarceration without a conclusive trial. The court underscored the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that prolonged detention without substantial progress in the trial process violates personal liberty.
In light of these considerations, the court granted bail to the accused, setting conditions to ensure his availability for trial and prevent any potential tampering with evidence. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights and the necessity for law enforcement agencies to conduct diligent and unbiased investigations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.