UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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