New Delhi [India], August 8 : A Tis Hazari court has granted bail to the prime accused in the alleged fatal assault of a 65-year-old person in West Punjabi Bagh, nearly five years after the incident.
The accused had been in judicial custody since September 26, 2020, facing charges of murder, attempted murder, dacoity, criminal conspiracy, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The case stems from an incident on the night of September 25-26, 2020, when Jagdish (deceased) returned home after walking a stray dog and was allegedly attacked by Sonu (accused), his friend, and others. Jagdish's wife and children sustained injuries while trying to protect him. He was taken to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and later shifted to RML Hospital, where he died the same evening.
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Ravi Drall argued that the accused had already spent nearly five years in custody, with no further investigation pending. All key eyewitnesses, including the victim's wife and daughter, had been examined. The defence claimed that the police had failed to establish any motive for the crime and had falsely implicated Sonu and others.
Advocate Drall further alleged that the police concealed a crucial fact, an earlier assault on Jagdish by one Rakesh Pradhan about six hours before the alleged incident, which could have caused the injuries leading to his death.
Sessions Judge Nipun Awasthi, while passing judgement last week, noted significant lapses in the investigation.
The Investigating Officers admitted that they had not recorded Jagdish's statement during his stay at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital between 1:40 a.m. and the morning of September 26, 2020. The judge remarked that this failure was "imprudent, indifferent, malicious or motivated, but not reasonable."
The court also noted that the statement of the victim's wife, who was injured in the incident, was not recorded during that period, with no explanation given for the delay.
Taking into account the nearly five years Sonu had spent in custody, the completion of key witness examinations, and the anomalies in the investigation, the court ruled that his continued detention was unwarranted for the purposes of investigation or trial.