MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Assault and Property Occupation Case: “Length of Custody and Witness Examination Crucial”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Ram Prasad, who had been in judicial custody since December 18, 2019. The case, registered under various sections of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, involved allegations of illegal property occupation and physical assault.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, while delivering the order, emphasized the importance of considering the duration of custody and the status of witness examination in bail decisions. “The length of the custody and the fact that the material public witnesses have been examined are key considerations in this case,” stated Justice Bhatnagar.

The FIR, lodged at Khyala Police Station, detailed serious accusations against the petitioner, including assaulting and outraging the modesty of the complainant, and cutting the hair of her young son. Despite these grave charges, the court observed that since the material public witnesses had been examined and there was no risk of evidence tampering, bail was warranted.

The petitioner's counsel had argued for his release, highlighting that all material witnesses had been examined and no further purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. Conversely, the State, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, opposed the bail, underscoring the serious nature of the allegations.

In his judgment, Justice Bhatnagar remarked, “Considering the length of custody since 18.12.2019 and the examination of material witnesses, the court finds grounds for bail.” The court stipulated that the petitioner is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and a surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Date of Decision: 01.12.2023

RAM PRASAD VS STATE NCT OF DELHI

Latest Legal News