Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

No Motive or Reason Can Be Assigned to Merely a Domestic Help (Servant) – Delhi HC Grants Bail in Kidnapping and Attempted Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Vicky Anand, a domestic helper, in a complex case involving charges of kidnapping, illegal confinement, attempted murder, and criminal conspiracy. Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, observed that no clear motive or reason could be assigned to the applicant, who was merely a domestic helper in the residence of the co-accused persons.

The bail application hinged on the interpretation of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the allegations made under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 365, 367, 368, 307, 506, 34, and 120B. A significant point of the judgement was the treatment of evidence by a hostile witness in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the victim, who alleged that after eloping and marrying a woman against her family’s wishes, both were kidnapped, and he was grievously injured by the woman’s family. However, during the trial, the victim turned hostile, denying his earlier statements and alleging that the police obtained his signature on blank papers.

Justice Mahajan meticulously assessed the evidence and circumstances, especially highlighting the victim’s hostile testimony. The court observed that the applicant was not initially named in the FIR or the initial chargesheet and was implicated only in the supplementary chargesheet without a clear motive. Considering the absence of the applicant’s name in initial stages, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the victim turning hostile, the court found it reasonable to grant bail.

Vicky Anand was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Conditions included a restriction on leaving the National Capital Region without permission, regular appearance in court, and the requirement to keep his mobile phone s[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Del-19-Feb-24-Vicky-Bail.pdf"]witched on and responsive to law enforcement.

 Date of Decision: 19th February 2024

Vicky Anand Vs. State of NCT of Delhi

Latest Legal News