Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Common Intention in Crime Inseparable, Bail Denied in Murder Case: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling on February 16, 2024, dismissed a bail application underlining the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving a homicidal death. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, highlights the significance of collective responsibility in crimes involving multiple accused.

The case (BAIL APPLN. 3733/2023) revolves around the FIR No. 709/2020, registered for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. The petitioner, Deepak, sought regular bail for his involvement in a fatal stabbing incident reported on July 11, 2020. The prosecution’s case, based on eyewitness accounts, including that of the deceased’s sister, Smt. Deepmala, depicted a grisly scene where the victim was allegedly stabbed by co-accused Saif Ali and others, including the petitioner.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma meticulously analyzed the material on record, notably focusing on the concept of ‘common intention’. The Court observed, “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” The Court found the petitioner’s argument, claiming he did not cause the fatal Injury, to be without merit. It was noted that the petitioner was part of the group that collectively inflicted injuries leading to the victim’s death.

The Court also considered the testimonies of PW-1 (Deepmala) and PW-3 (the mother of the deceased), who supported the prosecution’s case and mentioned threats from the accused. The gravity of the offence and the impact on the victim’s family were pivotal in the Court’s decision to deny bail.

Given the severity of the crime and the principle of common intention, the Court denied regular bail to the petitioner, Deepak, stating, “the gravity of the offence is the basis of deciding as to whether the bail can be granted to an accused or not.” The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offence, which could potentially lead to life imprisonment or a death sentence upon conviction.

Date of Decision:  16.02.2024

DEEPAK VS STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

 

Latest Legal News