Delhi HC grants bail to murder accused for want of evidence
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court granted bail to a murder accused who allegedly walked into the police station and confessed to beating his father-in-law to death with an iron chair. Passing the order, the court last week observed that the prosecution’s narrative on the chain of events showed several inconsistencies, especially in the way the investigation was conducted. Given these inconsistencies and the fact that the accused had been in judicial custody for 22 months, the court deemed it fit to grant bail to Vijender, the accused, in exchange for a personal bond of Rs 25,000. Also Read – More good air days in Delhi due to Centre’s steps: JavadekarAccording to the FIR registered at Bindapur police station in August 2017, Vijender turned himself in and confessed to having killed his father-in-law in Uttam Nagar. He then led police to the scene of the crime, from where the body of the deceased was recovered. According to the prosecution’s narrative, which is based on the FIR, Vijender went to his father-in-law’s home in Uttam Nagar around 8 am on August 2, 2017. They were in the midst of a property dispute and in the heat of the moment, Vijender picked up an iron chair with a broken handle and hit his father-in-law in the head. Also Read – Union min Hardeep Singh Puri, Delhi L-G lay foundation stones for various projects in DwarkaIn his alleged confession, Vijender then panicked and asphyxiated his bleeding father-in-law with a pillow, thus killing him. The accused then allegedly locked the house from outside and went to a park for an hour on his scooty. He then allegedly told his family members about the incident, who asked him to surrender. However, defence counsel arguing for Vijender’s bail said that this narrative has a lot of inconsistencies based on statements provided by prosecution witnesses. Advocate Rishi Pal Singh said that when Vijender led police to the body, the bedroom where the deceased was found, was locked from the inside. Secondly, Vijender’s wife and son were allegedly living at the house at the time but investigating authorities never spoke to them or took their statements. And thirdly, the chair, which was allegedly used to murder the victim did not hold up to forensic examination. While the prosecution had claimed that the chair used for the offence had a broken handle, the chair examined by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory did not have either handle on it. On these grounds, the defence lawyers argued that police officers after having found a blind murder case had accused their client only because of a known prior dispute between the two. The court observed that while motive is a strong basis for the case, inconsistencies in the state of the evidence is overbearing. It cited that while the murder weapon didn’t show any signs of blood and the fact that investigating authorities could not explain why certain evidentiary materials were not recovered. However, while passing the bail order, Justice Mukta Gupta observed that this order would not have any bearing on the merits of the original case, which will be going to the trial court.