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

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in 2015 Hauz Khas Murder Case Citing Weak Prosecution and Long Incarceration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today granted bail to Vikas Balguer @ Shammi and Ashish Balguer, implicated in the 2015 Hauz Khas murder case. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, while pronouncing the judgment, observed that the weak prosecution case, coupled with the long incarceration of the accused, tilted the balance in favor of granting bail.

The Court considered the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the purpose of custody, which is to ensure the accused’s availability during the trial. The Court opined that an indefinite period of custody, especially in the face of an uncertain trial conclusion, might lead to grave injustice if the accused are ultimately acquitted.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Rohit Bansal about a fight that occurred on the intervening night of October 21-22, 2015, at Shanghai-30 Bar and Restaurant in Hauz Khas, leading to the death of Rupesh. The FIR registered included charges under Sections 302/308/201/212/34 IPC. The petitioners sought regular bail after being in custody for over 7 years and 8 months.

The Court meticulously analyzed the testimonies of key eyewitnesses, noting significant inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. The key witnesses, including PW2 Rohit Bansal, PW3 Sagar Sharma, and PW4 Jitender Sharma, either partially or wholly resiled from their earlier statements. Additionally, the Court noted the clean antecedents of petitioner Ashish Balguer and the acquittal of Vikas Balguer @ Shammi in another case.

Granting bail, the Court directed the petitioners to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties of the like amount. The Court imposed conditions including appearance before the Court as required, maintaining working mobile numbers, and refraining from any criminal activity or contact with witnesses/complainants.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for considering the bail application and should not influence the trial’s merits.

Date of Decision: 15.02.2024

VIKAS BALGUER @ SHAMMI VS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Latest Legal News