Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Or Allowing To Register FIR U/S Section 156(3) CrPC Application Is Not Interlocutory; Criminal Revision Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court

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