Prolonged Incarceration Serves No Purpose After Witnesses Examined: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Dismissed Cop

“Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Liberty”, Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling affirming the constitutional principles of personal liberty and presumption of innocence, granting regular bail to Amit Kumar Yadav, a dismissed constable of Delhi Police, accused in a high-profile kidnapping for ransom case. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the matter, categorically held that “no fruitful purpose would be served keeping the Applicant in jail,” especially after the prosecution had examined all key witnesses and contradictions had emerged in the evidence against the accused.

The Court emphatically reiterated the settled law that “the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent unless found guilty,” quoting from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The decision came in Bail Application No. 4481 of 2024 filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), with the Court directing the release of the applicant after nearly four years of incarceration since November 2021.

Delhi High Court Emphasises Liberty Cannot Be Undermined by Seriousness of Allegations Alone

The case arose from FIR No. 0461/2021, where Amit Kumar Yadav, along with co-accused, including police and ex-army personnel, was arrested on charges under Sections 364A, 392, 397, 412, 34 IPC and provisions of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, while armed, kidnapped a person for ransom, demanded ₹5 lakh and forcibly took valuables from others present.

During the hearing, the defence pointed out that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 19 November 2021, all key prosecution witnesses including the victim had been examined, and significant contradictions existed in the evidence. The defence stressed that no recoveries had been made from Yadav, there was no proper Test Identification Parade (TIP), CCTV footage did not clearly identify him, and the call detail records were conflicting.

Justice Krishna observed, “The testimony of all the key material and public witnesses has already been recorded and there is little likelihood of him tampering the evidence or influencing the witnesses,” adding that “continuation of incarceration serves no useful purpose when the substantive part of the trial has concluded.”

The Court dismissed the prosecution’s objections, noting that the risk of absconding was minimal, the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and the alleged offences occurred while Yadav was still serving in the disciplined force, a dismissal that was subsequently reversed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Court Acknowledges Inconsistencies in Police Narrative and Upholds Principle of Bail

The Court was critical of the gaps in the prosecution story, observing that “no public witness has been examined regarding the presence of the accused persons in CCTV footage” and “the supplementary charge-sheet contradicts the main charge-sheet.” Justice Krishna further remarked, “It has been noted that the alleged SIM card recoveries are inconsistent, and the investigative lapses add to the benefit of the doubt at this stage.”

Drawing strength from established precedents, the Court referred to Seema Singh v. CBI and Anr., where it was held, “even though the charges against the applicant are serious, that in itself cannot be a ground to deny bail.” The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658, where the apex court reminded courts of their duty to consider overcrowding and humane treatment of undertrials.

“No Fruitful Purpose Keeping Applicant In Jail” – Bail Allowed With Strict Conditions

Granting bail, the Court laid down conditions including a personal bond, a surety, appearance before the trial court, non-indulgence in criminal activity, and continuous cooperation with the investigating agency. Justice Krishna ordered, “The applicant is granted regular bail,” and clarified, “No fruitful purpose would be served keeping the applicant in jail, especially after key witnesses have testified and the likelihood of evidence tampering is minimal.”

In conclusion, Justice Krishna underscored that, “In our constitutional system, liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of prolonged pre-trial custody, particularly when the prosecution case itself is riddled with contradictions.”

Date of Decision: 18 July 2025