Right to Personal Liberty Paramount, Ambiguity in IPC Sections Not Ground for Extended Detention: Delhi High Court Grants Statutory Bail

132
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

The Delhi High Court, in its recent decision, emphasized the importance of personal liberty and granted statutory bail to the petitioner, Sanjay More. The court held that the ambiguity between Part I and Part II of Section 304 IPC should not be a ground for extended detention beyond the stipulated time frame for investigation under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts and Issues: The case revolves around FIR No. 380/2023, registered for offences under Sections 304/34 IPC, where the petitioner, Sanjay More, was arrested on 27th August 2023. The charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, leading More to apply for statutory bail. The petition challenged the order dated 06.12.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed his application for bail.

Court Assessment and Observations: Justice Navin Chawla highlighted the distinction between Part I and II of Section 304 IPC, noting the need for clarity at the investigation stage. The court observed that the lack of specific indication leads to the presumption of Part II, entitling statutory bail within 60 days of arrest. The court relied on precedents like Varun Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Devesh Kumar v. State, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty. The court found that the FIR and evidence collected did not prima facie show the petitioner had an ‘intention of causing death’, which would necessitate charging under Part I of Section 304 IPC.

Legal Principles and Law: The court analyzed Section 304 IPC, Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., and relevant Supreme Court judgments. It emphasized the statutory right to bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period and the need for the prosecution to clearly indicate whether the investigation pertains to Part I or II of Section 304 IPC.

Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 and directed the release of Sanjay More on statutory bail, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and compliance with specific conditions regarding residence, appearance before court, and not indulging in criminal activities.

Date of Decision: 09th February 2024

SANJAY MORE vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Download Judgment

Share: