Delhi High Court: In a bail application seeking regular bail suffering incarceration since 17-05-2018 in FIR for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, Girish Kathpalia, J., directed that the accused/applicant be released forthwith on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The case pertains to a gruesome murder committed in 2018, wherein the dismembered body of a woman was recovered and initially identified. The applicant/accused was arrested in connection with this murder and has remained incarcerated since 17-05-2018. The investigating agency, however, was later confronted with the startling fact that the identified individual was very much alive, thereby discrediting the identification of the deceased. To date, the identity of the victim remains unknown. Despite the lack of identification of the deceased, a charge sheet was filed in 2018, followed by four supplementary chargesheets.
The accused/applicant sought regular bail on the ground that he has been incarcerated for nearly seven years without the State being able to conclusively identify the victim. His counsel argued that it would be unjust to prolong his detention when the prosecution itself cannot establish the basic fact of who was murdered. It was submitted that such a critical missing link, i.e., the identity of the deceased, destroys the chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to establish guilt under criminal jurisprudence.
The State opposed the bail plea by relying on three incriminating factors: first, that there was “last seen” evidence linking the accused/applicant to the victim; second, that a bag used to dispose of the body was recovered at the instance of the accused/applicant; and third, that the accused/applicant’s mobile location, based on call detail records (CDRs), placed him at the scene of the offence. Additionally, the prosecution disclosed the prior involvement of the applicant in a theft case, though it was also admitted that he had been granted bail in that matter.
The defence countered these claims by arguing that the “last seen” theory cannot hold any evidentiary value since the individual with whom the accused was last seen was later found alive. Furthermore, the defence pointed out that mobile tower locations cover large areas and cannot pinpoint a person’s exact location, rendering the CDR evidence inconclusive. As to the recovery of the bag, no independent corroboration or forensic linkage was demonstrated to substantiate that claim.
The Court emphasised that this case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and reiterated the fundamental principle that motive forms an integral part of the chain of such evidence. In the present matter, given that the identity of the deceased has not been determined, the presence of any motive on the part of the accused remains unsubstantiated. This absence of motive, combined with the failure to identify the deceased, critically weakens the prosecution’s case.
The Court acknowledged the grave tragedy that a human being was murdered and mutilated in such a horrific manner and expressed sorrow that justice had not been delivered to the unidentified victim. However, it clarified that this unfortunate reality cannot become the basis to indefinitely curtail the liberty of an individual whose alleged connection to the crime has not been legally substantiated.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, directing that the accused/applicant be released forthwith on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
[Manjeet Karketta v. GNCTD, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2524, decided on 21-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sundeshwar Lal, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with ACP Mukesh Kumar and Inspector Lakhmi Chand, PS Paschim Vihar West
