Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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