Delhi Court grants bail to man accused of stabbing relative
While granting bail, the court took note of the fact that all public witnesses had been examined and only formal police witnesses were left to be examined, who could not be influenced by the accused/applicant.
Noting that the accused had been in jail for 13 months, a Delhi Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man accused of stabbing his relative.
While granting bail Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vipin Kharb of the Dwarka Court opined, “All public witnesses have been examined and now only formal police witnesses are left to be examined, who cannot be influenced by the accused/applicant”.
Advocate Mohit Rana appearing for the accused namely Vivek Kashyap submitted that as per the prosecution's story that the deceased namely Sumit expired due to a stabbing by a knife in the stomach by Vivek in presence of the complainant/eye-witness, Rohit. He stated that the deceased and accused were relatives, and Rohit (eye-witness) was a friend of the deceased.
Rana submitted that as per Rohit’s complaint Vivek was beating him, but Sumit (the deceased) came in between, because of which the accused stabbed the deceased. Despite seeing the injury, the complainant (Rohit) did not take him to the hospital, he argued.
The counsel highlighted that the MLC of the deceased stated that he was brought to the hospital by his sister.
“This raises serious doubt on the conduct of the complainant and shows that he is an afterthought because if injured (the deceased) was stabbed while protecting Rohit, then he should have taken the deceased to the hospital”, he argued. It was also argued that there had been a significant delay in registering the FIR in the present case and stated that the incident took place at 9:30 pm on January 25, 2022, but the FIR was registered at 2:35 pm on January 26, 2022, i.e. after 17 hours.
Furthermore, Rana argued that Rohit (the complainant) and all public witnesses of the prosecution had been examined and they did not support the case in any manner. Considering the aforementioned discrepancies, he contended that Vivek (the accused) had already spent time in judicial custody at the tender age of 22.
The court noted that the eyewitness in the case did not support the prosecution and that he even failed to identify the accused person. It was also noted that there were "no discrepancies in the testimony of the deceased’s sister." Accordingly, the court granted bail to Vivek on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.
Case Title: State v. Vivek Kashyap
Statue: The Indian Penal Code; The Code of Criminal Procedure