MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News