Gravity of Offence Overweighs Right to Education: Delhi High Court Denies Interim Bail to PhD Student in Murder Case

151
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

The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Varun, a 23-year-old PhD student, charged under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the IPC for his alleged involvement in a murder case. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, presiding over the case, emphasized the severity of the charges against the petitioner, stating, “Gravity of the offence overweighs the right to education,” marking a crucial consideration in bail applications involving serious offences.

The petitioner, currently In judicial custody, sought interim bail for three months to attend his regular classes at the University of Gujarat. His request was based on the necessity to continue his education, a point previously accommodated by the court through short-term interim bail for entrance exams and document verification.

In his ruling, Justice Bhatnagar referenced the significant difference in circumstances between the current case and those cited by the petitioner, notably cases from the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court, which had granted interim bail. He pointed out that those cases involved facilities like video conferencing, a provision not applicable in the present scenario. “The situation would have been different if there was any facility of video conferencing for attending the PHD classes,” Justice Bhatnagar noted, underscoring the unique considerations of each bail application.

Further, the court expressed concerns about the potential threat to the complainant and witnesses, a factor significantly influencing the decision. The court’s apprehension was evident as it noted, “Granting petitioner interim bail for such a long period of 3 months will hamper the trial.”

Date of Decision: 22nd November 2023

VARUN VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Download Judgment

Share: