Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS, ASJ-04
(SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 60/2023, IA No. 02/2025
STATE VS. Yogesh Kumar
FIR No. 711/2022
PS: Harsh Vihar
U/s 302 IPC
24.09.2025
File is taken today on an application under Section 483
BNSS seeking regular bail being moved on behalf of applicant/ accused
Yogesh Kumar.
Present: Sh. Vineet, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State.
None for applicant/accused.
1. Arguments on the present application has already been
heard.
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ accused had submitted that
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case; that it
is alleged that accused confessed his involvement in the offence in
question; that thereafter, the accused was arrested and produced before
the Ld. MM but the Prosecution has failed to supply the grounds of
arrest in writing and not even mentioned in the arrest memo of any
documents; that the arrest of the applicant/accused on 20.11.2022 is
illegal and void ab initio due to Investigating Officer’s failure to
communicate written grounds of arrest.
3. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had further submitted
that investigation of the present case is complete and chargesheet has
already been filed; that there is no evidence against the
applicant/accused except his disclosure state; that no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the applicant/accused behind bars; the
applicant/accused is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions and
is also ready to furnish reliable surety to the satisfaction of this Court.
4. Per-contra, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State has
strongly opposed the present application while submitting that the
allegations against the applicant/accused are grave in nature; As per the
-- 1 of 7 --
case of Prosecution, on 21.11.2022 a PCR call regarding
"Caller bol rha
hai ki apni wife maine gala daba kar mar dee hai" vide DD No. 11A
was received at PS Harsh Vihar; on receipt of PCR call, the IO reached
at the spot i.e. H. No. 69, Durga Mandir wali Gali, Sushila Garden,
Mandoli Extn., Delhi where a dead body female namely Archana was
laying on the second floor of a room; that husband of deceased namely
Yogesh was found at the spot and he stated that he committed murder of
his wife by strangulation; the place of occurrence was got inspected by
Crime Mooile Team; the present case FIR was registered and disclosure
statement of the applicant/accused Yogesh was recorded.
On 21.11.2022, postmortem of the deceased Archana was
conducted vide PM No. 1932/22 by the doctor of GTB Hospital. Cause
of death in the postmortem was opined as: Cause of death is asphyxia as
a result of antemortem strangulation by ligature.
5. Ld. substitute Addl. PP for the State has submitted that
during the investigation, the applicant/accused himself revealed that he
killed his wife by wrapping the
dupatta around her neck and pulling and
tightening it; that he and his wife had a placement work in Durgapuri;
that they had a debt of crores of rupees in the market; that loan takers
used to demand repayment and the whole reason for the debt was his
wife Archana, who used to get money from people herself; due to this,
he used to quarrel with his wife; that loan sharks used to harass him
everyday and he was very much disturbed by that and not finding a way
out, he made up his mind to murder his wife; that in the morning at
about 7.45 am, he killed his wife by strangulating her with his own hand
and then by wrapping a
duppata around her neck and tightening it.
6. The Ld. substitute Addl. PP has further submitted that,
apart from the extra-judicial confession made by the applicant/accused
himself, there exists other corroborative circumstantial evidence linking
him to the commission of the offence. The motive behind the act is
-- 2 of 7 --
apparent and well-established. It is also submitted that the
applicant/accused was last seen with the deceased and call regarding the
incident was also made by him and in such circumstances, the burden
shifts upon him to explain the events that transpired, thereafter, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and failure to provide a plausible explanation justifies
drawing an adverse inference against the accused.
7. Ld. substitute Addl. PP for the State has argued that
grounds/reasons of the arrest were duly informed to the applicant/
accused; that on 21.11.2022, when the applicant/accused was produced
before the Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi after his
fresh arrest and his Judicial Custody was sought, the applicant/accused
was duly represented by a Counsel on that day and the Ld. Trial Court
had observed that there were sufficient grounds for arrest of the
applicant/accused and reasons for remand were also observed to be
sufficient; thereafter also, JC remand of the applicant/accused was
extended multiple times and during which also he was duly represented
by a Counsel and no objection was ever raised by the accused/applicant
or his Counsel that no ground/reason of arrest was conveyed to him,
which shows that applicant/accused was duly aware about his
ground/reason of arrest.
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has relied upon the Judgment
titled as State of Karnataka Vs. Sri. Darshan Etc. passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 14.08.2025 and has further argued that mere
absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal,
unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity
to defend; in the present case at hand, the applicant/accused was duly
represented by a Counsel at every stage and till date, no material has
been placed on record to establish that any demonstrable prejudice was
caused due to the alleged procedural lapse; that it has been observed by
-- 3 of 7 --
Ld. Apex Court that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as
irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant
release on bail.
9. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further submitted that
allegations against the applicant/accused are grave in nature; that the
trial of the matter is at nascent stage and the applicant/accused may try
to influence the witnesses or may try to tamper with the evidence,
therefore, the applicant/accused may not be admitted on bail.
10. This Court has heard the arguments on this application
and has also perused the available record.
11. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment titled as State of
Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India on 14.08.2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528 - 3534 of 2025
(arising from SLP (CRL.) Nos. 516 – 522 of 2025) are reproduced
hereinunder for reference:
“… 20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by
itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents – accused
contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest
were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating
Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now
Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This
submission, however, is devoid of merit.
20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly,
Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer or
other person arresting any person without warrant shall
forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific
-- 4 of 7 --
form or insists upon written communication in every case.
Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance
with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable
prejudice is shown.
20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated
that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of
the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in
writing. Similarly, in
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest is made
pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to
sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal
decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an
inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent
judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test
when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence
of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal,
unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair
opportunity to defend.
20.1.6. The High Court, however, relied heavily on the alleged
procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking
the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the
existence of a prima facie case. It noted, inter alia, that there
was no mention in the remand orders about service of memo of
grounds of arrest (para 45); the arrest memos were allegedly
template-based and not personalised (para 50); and
eyewitnesses had not stated that they were present at the time
of arrest or had signed the memos (para 48). Relying on Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India24 and Prabir Purkayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi) (supra), it concluded (paras 43, 49 – 50) that
from 03.10.2023 onwards, failure to serve detailed, written,
and individualised grounds of arrest immediately after arrest
was a violation entitling the accused to bail.
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand
records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the
reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the
outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an
immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No
material has been placed on record to establish that any
prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In
the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is,
at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release
on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a
determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the
charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima
facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir
Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on
materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach
-- 5 of 7 --
adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that
procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent
prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the
accused to bail....”
12. As per the case of the Prosecution, the applicant/accused
Yogesh Kumar committed murder of his wife/victim/deceased Archana
by strangulating her neck.
It is well settled principle of law that at the stage of
determining the question of bail, minute/ detailed evaluation of the facts
and appreciation of evidence on merits, is not to be done.
It is stated that grounds/reasons for arrest of the
applicant/accused were duly informed to the applicant/accused. The
applicant/ accused was duly represented by a Counsel at every stage of
trial but no objection was ever raised by the accused/ applicant or his
Counsel that grounds/reasons of arrest were not conveyed to him. No
material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was
caused due to any alleged procedural lapse.
Allegations against the accused/ applicant are grave in
nature. PMR of the victim/deceased reveals the cause of death of the
victim/deceased as Asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation by
ligature. The trial of the matter is at a nascent stage. Possibility of
tampering with the evidence or threatening, influencing or inducing the
victim or witnesses, also cannot be ruled at this stage.
Considering the enormity of the offences alleged, severity
of the punishment which the alleged offence entails coupled with the
above-stated reasons, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant bail to
the accused/ applicant Yogesh Kumar, at this stage. Therefore, the
present bail application stands, dismissed.
13.
Nothing expressed hereinabove, shall tantamount to any
opinion on the merits of this case.
14. In compliance of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled ‘In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail’, Writ
-- 6 of 7 --
Petition (Crl.) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023, copy of this order be sent
to applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
15. The application stands disposed of. Copy of this order be
given dasti to Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused and to the IO as per
rules.
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS)
ASJ-04, Shahdara/KKD Courts,
Delhi/24.09.2025
-- 7 of 7 --