ASHOK DHANKAD Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests. On one hand lies the imperative to uphold the personal liberty of the accused -an entrenched constitutional value reinforced by the presumption of innocence, which remains a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. On the other hand, the court must remain equally mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence, the broader societal implications of the accused's release, and the need to preserve the integrity and fairness of the investigative and trial processes. While liberty is sacrosanct, particularly in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. The exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, therefore, must be informed by a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overarching interest of ensuring that the trial proceeds without obstruction or prejudice.

(3.) The case at hand is one such case, where this Court has been called upon to ensure the above-mentioned balance. The present Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the final judgment and order dtd. 4/3/2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2654/2024 whereby Respondent No. 2, Sushil Kumar (hereinafter the 'Accused') came to be enlarged on regular bail under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 218/2021 under Ss. 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC') and Ss. 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.