It would not be prudent to continue to keep the juvenile in custody considering that three years have already gone by and the trial has still a long way to go before completion: Delhi High Court

BAIL APPLN. 3202/2021


The petitioner through this petition sought for regular bail in FIR No.113/2018 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at PS Old Delhi Railway Station. The petitioner was at the time of the arrest was 16 years old, this took place on 13th December, 2018. Therefore, has been addressed as a CCL.

Till date, the period undergone by the petitioner is approximately 3 years 1 month. The charge-sheet in the FIR has been filed and the trial is underway with 4 witnesses having been examined and cross-examined while the balance 33 odd witnesses are still to be examined. Bail petition before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL.

Indian Penal Code

Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Section 302 Punishment for murder


The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was only about 16 years at the time of the alleged incident and is now aged about 20 years having old age parents. He states that his client’s father is a handicapped person and lives a life in poverty.

A DD Entry No.44PP dated 16th September, 2018 was received noting that there was a body found on Vivek Vihar Railway Station. The investigation team went to the spot and found a male body cut in two pieces with blood lying and the crime team also came and collected exhibits from the spot. The body was sent to the mortuary as unknown but on the next day one Sajiya identified the body as Samad aged 19 years as her brother.

The doctor through the post mortem, determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injuries produced by a sharp edged weapon.

Based upon a secret informer, the accused Deepu Kumar was arrested on 11th December, 2018 aged 22 years. He disclosed that about 2-3 months back he with his friend Pradeep, juvenile “S” and juvenile “R” were consuming liquor near Vivek Vihar Railway Station. Juvenile “R”  had a big knife (chapat) with him and at about 12:00 midnight Deepu came and told him that he had snatched a mobile from a boy standing at the gate of a train and when they saw towards the direction they saw the boy saying something while pointing towards them.

Around 2:00 a.m. this young person came to them and started arguing saying one of you has snatched a mobile and argument resulted.

Here, Deepu caught hold of his left hand, Pradeep caught hold of his right hand, juvenile “S” also caught hold of him and juvenile “R” assaulted him with the chapat. The young man died and they took away his purse, watch and bag with them and put the body on the railway track to portray the incident as an accident.

As per the prosecution, co-accused Pradeep and CCL “S” and “R” were apprehended. The tiffin box of the deceased was allegedly recovered from the house of CCL “S”.

Matter with respect to CCL “S” and “R” was filed before the Principal Magistrate, JJB-05, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadara, Delhi and through order of 30th   May, 2019 the said matter was transferred to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court to try the case as an adult. Thus began the trial proceeded and CCL “S” was in custody but, was retained and detained in a child home at Kingsway Camp.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the Investigating Officer had taken a further opinion on the post mortem report with the doctor. The IO received the reply on 02nd November, 2018 stating that “injuries caused by train accident or homicidal or otherwise and IO is advised to collect circumstantial evidence”. 

Further, the counsel contended that contended that this was a case of false implication. He states there existed no direct evidence against the accused and the case of the prosecution has many lacunas. The alleged recoveries were effected by the IO after delay of about 3 months from public places which was not supported by any independent witness and neither any videography was recorded. The role of CCL “S” was merely based upon the disclosure of Deepu, who was arrested on the basis of some secret informer, as also the fact that there was no direct evidence or eyewitness of any sought regarding the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime.

The council contends that, even if the disclosure of Deepu was to be believed the accused had not brandished any weapon and was merely stated as being with the other boys by Deepu, who had been taken into custody.

The Ld. APP submitted that as per the status report the bail should not be granted since the petitioner was involved in heinous case.


The Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that it would not be prudent to continue to keep the juvenile in custody considering that three years have already gone by and the trial has still a long way to go before completion.

The Court taking account of the report in the Nominal Roll considered that there had been substantial propers on the rehabilitative and reformative process on the petitioner.

Court found it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, with the following conditions:

  • Petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
  • Petitioner has given his address in the memo of parties. The petitioner shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in residential address.
  • Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
  • Petitioner shall join investigation, if any, as and when called by the IO concerned.
  • Petitioner shall provide all his mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the IO concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all times.
  • Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, the victim or any member of the victim’s family or tamper with the evidence of the case. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view your judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *