SURENDER ALIAS SURESH Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment would dispose of Crl. M.(M) 398/83 and Crl. M.(M) 442 of 1983, by two petitioners, seeking bail during the pendency of separate trials on charges of murder. The petitioners in the both the cases are young men but so were the victims in each of these cases and are survived by equally young widows of meagre means. The petitions involve a common question, if conditional bail orders could be made in the circumstances so as to strike a balance between the need of liberty for the accused to arrange his defence and the natural anxiety to save the dependents of the victims from economic hardship. The further question that arises is, if such a condition is neither illegal nor improper, what should be the precise terms of such a conditional order and as to the best mode of its implementation.

(2.) SURINDER alias Suresh, petitioner in Crl. M(M) 398/83, is said to be of 22 years of age, and charged, alongwith his sister and brother-in-law, with the murder of a neighbour, Gaya Parshad. The victim was said to be in his mid-forties and survived by a widow, who is said to be of meagre means. The co-accused of the petitioner i.e. his sister and brother-in-law, were admitted to bail and the grant of bail to the petitioner is opposed on the ground that although the occurrence was the result of a streat brawl, among the neighbours, the petitioner gave the lathi blow on the head of the victim and death is said to have been caused by this blow, which was said to be sufficient to kill. Bail is further opposed on the ground that the enlargrment of the petitioner may endanger the safety of the widow and likely to scare away the eye-witnesses of the crime.

(3.) IN both the cases there is a common contention that the petitioners, the widows of the victim, as indeed, the other eye-witnesses, reside in the same locality and in one of the cases are almost next door neighbours, and the release of the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the trial was likely to endanger the lives of the widows and may possibly scare them away, as indeed, the other eye-witnesses of the locality from the trial.