Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Right to Personal Liberty Paramount, Ambiguity in IPC Sections Not Ground for Extended Detention: Delhi High Court Grants Statutory Bail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in its recent decision, emphasized the importance of personal liberty and granted statutory bail to the petitioner, Sanjay More. The court held that the ambiguity between Part I and Part II of Section 304 IPC should not be a ground for extended detention beyond the stipulated time frame for investigation under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts and Issues: The case revolves around FIR No. 380/2023, registered for offences under Sections 304/34 IPC, where the petitioner, Sanjay More, was arrested on 27th August 2023. The charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, leading More to apply for statutory bail. The petition challenged the order dated 06.12.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed his application for bail.

Court Assessment and Observations: Justice Navin Chawla highlighted the distinction between Part I and II of Section 304 IPC, noting the need for clarity at the investigation stage. The court observed that the lack of specific indication leads to the presumption of Part II, entitling statutory bail within 60 days of arrest. The court relied on precedents like Varun Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Devesh Kumar v. State, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty. The court found that the FIR and evidence collected did not prima facie show the petitioner had an 'intention of causing death', which would necessitate charging under Part I of Section 304 IPC.

Legal Principles and Law: The court analyzed Section 304 IPC, Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., and relevant Supreme Court judgments. It emphasized the statutory right to bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period and the need for the prosecution to clearly indicate whether the investigation pertains to Part I or II of Section 304 IPC.

Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 and directed the release of Sanjay More on statutory bail, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and compliance with specific conditions regarding residence, appearance before court, and not indulging in criminal activities.

Date of Decision: 09th February 2024

SANJAY MORE vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

 

Latest Legal News