Court Must Act As "Doctor" Rather Than "Coroner": Delhi HC Grants Bail To Murder Accused In Custody For Over 5 Years
The Bench held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration in cases of circumstantial evidence necessitates judicial intervention.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, has held that continuing the detention of an undertrial for over five years, when the trial is still at an early stage, necessitates judicial intervention to ensure that fundamental rights are not defeated by procedural delays. Consequently, the bench remarked that the judiciary must act proactively, likening its role to a "doctor" rather than a "coroner", and preserve the right to speedy trial before it stands extinguished.
The court observed that the petitioner had already undergone substantial incarceration despite the lack of direct evidence for abduction for ransom and murder. It noted that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the potential influencing of material witnesses could be adequately addressed through the imposition of stringent conditions rather than continued imprisonment.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed, “What weighs heavily with this court however, is the fact that as per the nominal roll, the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody for about 05 years; and that, as candidly stated by the learned APP, only 07 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far; and there is no material on record to suggest that the delay in conduct of trial is attributable to the petitioner. While the offences alleged are undoubtedly serious, prolonged pre-trial incarceration, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence and where the trial is at a comparatively early stage, militates against the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
Advocate Tanya Aggarwal appeared for the petitioner and Shubhi Gupta, APP appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Ranjit Mehto, abducted a man for a ransom of Rs.45,000/- on February 7, 2021. It was claimed that the petitioner obtained bank account details from a local shop to facilitate the ransom transfer and that the deceased's decomposed body was later recovered from a jhuggi allegedly rented by the petitioner.
Subsequent to which, the petitioner was arrested on February 12, 2021, and a blood-stained chopper was reportedly recovered at his instance.
Following the registration of FIR, charges were framed on April 07, 2022, under sections 364A, 365, 302, and 201 IPC. The petitioner moved the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after remaining in custody for approximately five years.
The Court considered the significant gaps in the prosecution's timeline, noting that the dead body was allegedly recovered hours before the petitioner's formal arrest, which cast doubt on the theory of discovery pursuant to a disclosure statement.
The bench further observed that the alleged weapon was found in a public space and that the FSL report did not prima facie link it to the crime. Referring to Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623, the Bench observed, “…the court must stepin early rather than late, to protect the right before it is defeated by the reason of prolonged undertrial incarceration. As observed in Mohd. Hakim, this court must act as a ‘doctor’ rather than a ‘coroner’ and save the right to speedy trial from extinguishment rather than lament later that it should have been preserved”.
The court directed the petitioner's release on a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount from a family member.
Cause Title: Ranjit Mehto v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3784)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Tanya Aggarwal, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, and Krishna Kumar
Respondents: Shubhi Gupta, APP and Arthava and Aakash Tiwari for the Complainant.