Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Assault and Property Occupation Case: “Length of Custody and Witness Examination Crucial” 

106
0
Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Ram Prasad, who had been in judicial custody since December 18, 2019. The case, registered under various sections of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, involved allegations of illegal property occupation and physical assault.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, while delivering the order, emphasized the importance of considering the duration of custody and the status of witness examination in bail decisions. “The length of the custody and the fact that the material public witnesses have been examined are key considerations in this case,” stated Justice Bhatnagar.

The FIR, lodged at Khyala Police Station, detailed serious accusations against the petitioner, including assaulting and outraging the modesty of the complainant, and cutting the hair of her young son. Despite these grave charges, the court observed that since the material public witnesses had been examined and there was no risk of evidence tampering, bail was warranted.

The petitioner’s counsel had argued for his release, highlighting that all material witnesses had been examined and no further purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. Conversely, the State, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, opposed the bail, underscoring the serious nature of the allegations.

In his judgment, Justice Bhatnagar remarked, “Considering the length of custody since 18.12.2019 and the examination of material witnesses, the court finds grounds for bail.” The court stipulated that the petitioner is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

 Date of Decision: 01.12.2023

RAM PRASAD VS STATE NCT OF DELHI

Download Judgment

Share: