-Report by Reyanshi Bansal
It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sarvesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi that the bail application will be rejected given the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the impact of the crime on society.
The bail application was filed by the petitioner under Section 439 (a person is in “custody” as and when he surrenders to the police) and Section 482 (the High court can recall a judgment or an order which was passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by it) of the Cr.P.C.
An F.I.R. was reported under IPC 364/48 (abduction or kidnapping order to murder) by Ramesh Chand in which he alleged that his son, Prem Kumar, went to the house of his friends, Ajay Singh and Sarvesh Singh. Then, his son’s phone was found switched off and all his efforts to find where his son was were unsuccessful.
Based on this information, a case was registered and an investigation was carried out. Evidence was found against the petitioner and Ajay Singh, because of which they were arrested and after the completion of the investigation, charges under section 302/201/120-B/34 IPC (murder, hiding evidence of a crime, criminal conspiracy, a criminal act carried out by several persons with a common intention) were framed against the accused persons.
The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated, he had no history of committing any criminal offence and that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner argued that there was only the presence of circumstantial evidence and not an eyewitness by which the prosecution is trying to trap the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that he is arrested because of a disclosure statement of the co-accused which is not admissible in the court as evidence. No incriminating substance was found against him.
Along with this, the petitioner surrendered himself to the court after the expiry of his interim bail and never misused the liberty granted to him by the court. Furthermore, the seven-year-old son of the petitioner is not keeping well. He requested to be released on regular bail for the above-mentioned reasons.
Contrary to the statements given by the petitioner, the prosecution opposed the bail application for several reasons. The state provided CCTV footage of the petitioner and co-accused in uniform carrying the dead body of the deceased Prem Kumar, a compact disc of a conversation between the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant, Kiran and two witnesses. One of the witnesses was the driver, Narender who deposed against the accused and revealed that the iron box was kept in the car. The other, Islamuddin, identified Sarvesh and Ajay Singh by their name plates who came to purchase the Tin box from his shop. The prosecution also contended that just because the petitioner made an interim bail, it does not entitle him to the grant of regular bail, more so, considering the merits of the case and the
heinous crime. As far as the uneasiness of the petitioner’s son goes, his wife is there to look for the child.
The court quashed the application for regular bail and held that:
“In view of the discussion mentioned hereinabove, looking into the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on the society and severity of the punishment of the offence, no ground for bail is made out, the bail application is, therefore, dismissed. Petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.”