Md. Shakir (Petitioner) v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Respondent)

Bail Appln. 1710/2025

(Swarana Kanta Sharma, J)

The Delhi High Court dealt with a bail application arising out of a brutal case of sexual assault and murder that shook the conscience of society. The petitioner, Mohd. Shakir sought regular bail in connection with an FIR registered at P.S. I.P. Estate for offenses under Sections 376, 302, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges levelled against him involved a brutal attack on a young woman outside one of the Delhi hospitals, where she was sexually and physically assaulted and ultimately died from her injuries. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, rejecting the bail application, highlighted the seriousness of the crime as well as the strong prima facie case against the accused.

The case began on 1st May 2023, when the police were informed by LNJP Hospital regarding the admission of a severely injured woman. She was found lying outside Gate No. 6 of G.B. Pant Hospital by a passerby and a rag picker, who brought her inside. She, despite her weakened state, was able to reveal that she was raped and beaten by one Shakir, who also took away her belongings. She gave some information about his phone number. Her health worsened, and she later died on 7th May 2023. Originally, registered under Sections 376, 376D, and 323 IPC, the FIR was later modified to add Sections 302 (murder) and 397 (robbery).

Throughout the probe, the police collected Call Detail Records (CDRs), which indicated that the victim received a call from a phone registered under Shakir’s name, and that the two exchanged phone calls routinely. The post-mortem examination found extensive injuries caused by bites on her face, hemorrhage in the eye, bruises, injuries to her genitals, and an anal fissure, attesting to the brutality of the attack. The post-mortem report stated that the victim died due to septicemia caused by intestinal perforation and perineal tears following blunt trauma during sexual assault. CCTV footage placed Shakir inside the hospital premises around the time of the incident, including on the third floor where the crime occurred. Further, the stolen cell phone of the victim was also recovered from an intermediary person, along with the accused’s handwriting on a slip containing his name and number, all the more connecting him to the crime. Forensic experts also matched the victim’s cheek bite marks with Shakir.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that he was falsely accused and pointed to inconsistencies in the victim’s statements. Initially, she informed the doctor that two unidentified men had attacked her, while subsequently she identified Shakir in front of the police. It was also argued that because the victim happened to know Shakir, her inability to identify him right away raised uncertainty. The defense also highlighted the considerable delay in trial proceedings, where only one out of forty witnesses was examined, and argued that further detention would go against the principle that jail is the exception and bail is the rule.

Conversely, the prosecution strongly objected to bail, emphasizing the atrocious nature of the offence and the overwhelming medical, forensic, and electronic evidence against the accused. The State presented the argument that releasing Shakir would jeopardize the trial, particularly since the main prosecution witnesses had yet to be examined. Due to the seriousness of the crime, the prosecution averred that this was not a case suitable for bail.

The Court, having gone through the material, noted that the forensic and medical evidence were conclusive of a case of sexual and physical brutality on a massive scale. The argument that earlier acquaintance eliminated the possibility of rape was dismissed. Justice Sharma once again reaffirmed that consent would have to be given with respect to every sexual act and cannot be implied from previous acquaintance. The overt resistance and multiple injuries testified to a failure of consent. The Court also held that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s first account were unimportant relative to the totality of the evidence.

Speaking to the principle of bail as the norm, the Court made it clear that though it protects against arbitrary imprisonment, it could not be applied automatically in matters where heinous crimes like rape and murder are involved. The Court held that in such crimes of such depravity, justice, deterrence, and security of women take priority over the normal principle of bail.

The Court refused bail to Shakir, considering the prima facie incriminating evidence against him, the seriousness of the offense, and the critical stage of the trial left no room for giving the concession of bail. The ruling ended with a reminder that guarding women from violence needs not merely stringent legislation but also stringent enforcement and institutional protections.