Delhi HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused, Notes Accused’s Father Delivered the Fatal Blow

The Delhi High Court, recently, granted bail to a man accused of murder after observing that the fatal injury which led to the victim’s death was inflicted by the accused’s father.

The court found that all key eyewitnesses were examined during the trial and that the prosecution's claim regarding the accused's role in instigating the crime was not supported by the initial statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The accused had remained in judicial custody for more than 18 months at the time of the order.

The bench of Justice Amit Sharma held, “the knife which was being carried by the father was not visible to anyone and was taken out by him from his waist after being pushed down to the ground at the spot”.

The case stemmed from a violent confrontation that occurred on October 23, 2022, in Qutub Vihar Phase 1, which resulted in the death of one Vishal Tiwari. According to the prosecution’s report, the local police received a PCR call reporting the incident. Upon reaching the location, the police found a blood-stained t-shirt and blood traces outside a residence. Shortly thereafter, Venkateshwar Hospital informed the authorities that Vishal Tiwari had succumbed to his injuries, while another individual, Vivek Tiwari, sustained injuries and was undergoing treatment.

Vivek Tiwari, the complainant and brother of the deceased, stated that the altercation began due to a minor dispute with a neighbour, Chandan Rai. He alleged that Chandan Rai, after threatening retaliation, returned to the scene accompanied by his father, Brij Bihari Rai. A scuffle ensued during which Brij Bihari Rai allegedly drew a knife and attacked both Vishal and Vivek Tiwari, resulting in Vishal’s death. Neighbours intervened, and both injured individuals were taken to the hospital.

During the investigation, the police collected biological samples, prepared a site map, reviewed CCTV footage, and arrested both Chandan Rai and his father. The knife allegedly used in the attack was also recovered.

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, for the applicant, submitted that the dispute initially arose from a collision involving an incoming tractor due to road construction. It was argued that the deceased and his brother had attacked the applicant, who fled the scene for safety.

Senior Advocate Rao contended that there was no evidence suggesting that the applicant knew his father was carrying a knife or that he intended to cause harm. It was also noted that the allegation of instigation only emerged during the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 1 (PW-1), and was absent from the original statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gahalot, for the State, asserted that the applicant had returned to the site of the incident with his father and carried a brick, thus actively participating in the attack. CCTV footage and the medical report were cited in support of this version. It was also alleged that the applicant disposed of the knife after the assault.

The bench, however, pointed out discrepancies in witness testimonies and emphasised the absence of any instigation claims in the initial stages of the investigation. Observing that the accused had no prior criminal record and that all relevant witnesses had already been examined, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail.

The court also noted that the “applicant has been in custody since 24.10.2022 and has spent 1 year 6 months and 9 days in custody as on 02.05.2024”. Accordingly, the bench directed the release of the applicant on a personal bond of ₹50,000, along with one surety of the same amount.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nandita Rao with Advocates Akhand Pratap Singh, Varun Singh, Ankur Raghav, Paritosh Awasthi, Himanshu Yadav, Ashrika Mehra, Amit Peswani, Abhinandan Gautam, Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohan Chandel and Hritwik Maurya

For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gahalot with Advocates Aditi Shivadhatri, Jagrati Singh, Rajpal and Rahul

Case Title: Chandan Rai v State (BAIL APPLN. 1195/2024)