Deals & Matter

Vikas Balaguer @ Shammi vs. State

Supreme Court

Medical Negligence

Vikas Balaguer @ Shammi vs. State
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Issue

The case stems from an incident on the night of 21/22 October 2015, involving a brawl outside Shanghai-30 Bar, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, resulting in the death of a person named Rupesh Tanwar. FIR No. 1187/2015 was initially registered under Sections 307, 308, 34 IPC, and later modified to include Sections 302, 201, and 212 IPC after Rupesh succumbed to injuries. The petitioner, Vikas Balguer @ Shammi, was implicated based on the confession of a co-accused. He has remained in custody since 28 October 2015 and is seeking regular bail.

Petitioner’s Argument

  • Delayed FIR & No Direct Involvement:

The FIR was registered after an 8-hour delay, based solely on the complainant’s statement. Vikas was not named in the initial FIR, club entry register, or early witness statements. His name was added based on another accused’s confession, not through direct evidence.

  • CCTV Footage and Lack of Identification:

CCTV footage used by the prosecution does not identify Vikas at the scene. He is not visible in the footage at the time of the incident.

  • Key Witnesses Testimonies Favorable:
  1. PW-4 (Sole Eye Witness): Jitender stated that Vikas was not present during the quarrel.
  2. PW-3 (Sagar Sharma): Admitted his court statement was manipulated and not genuine.
  3. PW-5 (Mahinder @ Monu): Admitted he was not present at the crime scene but in a car 300m away.
  • Contradictions in Prosecution Witnesses:

Testimonies of witnesses such as ASI Usha Yadav (PW-1) and Rohit Bansal (PW-2, complainant) were contradictory and unreliable.

  • Material Witnesses Already Examined:

Out of 45 witness in the chargesheet, 22 have been examined and cross-examined, including all material/public witness.
The remaining are formal witnesses.

  • No Threat or Influence Alleged:

There are no allegations or evidence that Vikas attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

  • Long Incarceration:

Vikas has been in judicial custody for over 7 years with no other criminal history. The prolonged detention without conviction is prejudicial and disproportionate.

  • Co-accused Granted Bail:

Anil Kumar Yadav, a co-accused, was granted bail on similar grounds. The principle of parity was argued to apply.

  • Family & Health Grounds:

Vikas’s father is a senior citizen with severe medical issues (including diabetic foot and gangrene) and has undergone foot amputation. The family is financially dependent on Vikas, who is the sole earning member.

  • Misuse of Law & Malafide Intent:

The petitioner argued that the FIR was a result of a conspiracy to extort and humiliate him, with no legal basis for his continued incarceration.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

Varun Singh, Founder and Managing Partner, Foresight

View More
Blogs

Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

The power of a governmental authority or

View More

Respondent’s Argument

  • Seriousness of Offense:

The prosecution emphasized that the charge is under Section 302 IPC (murder), which is grave and non-bailable, involving the brutal killing of a young man using bricks, rods, and a baseball bat.

  • CCTV and Circumstantial Evidence:

Although the petitioner was not directly identified in the CCTV footage, the prosecution relied on the overall involvement of the accused group during the time and place of the incident.

  • Prior Bail Cancellation:

Vikas had previously been granted bail by a trial court, but the Delhi High Court canceled it, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. This was presented as a ground for denying re-bail.

  • Pending Witnesses:

Although 22 witness were examined, the prosecution argued that Several formal and technical witnesses are yet to be examined, and releasing the accused could risk influencing the trail.

  • Apprehension of Absconding or Threat:

As the accused was allegedly involved in a group assault resulting in death, the State argued there was a risk he may flee or influence proceedings if released.

Tribunal's Findings (July 2021 Order)

  • Contradictory Testimonies Noted:

The court acknowledged that key witnesses, including the complainant and others, either contradicted themselves or did not directly implicate Vikas. For example:

  1. PW-2 (Rohit Bansal) admitted in court that he did not recognize the accused due to darkness.
  2. PW-3 claimed he was instructed on what to say and identified accused persons only after viewing the CCTV with the complainant.
  • Eye Witness Exoneration:

The most crucial exoneration came from PW-4 (Jitendar), who categorically stated that Vikas was not present during the assault.

  • Equality Before Law:

The court took note of the fact that a co-accused (Anil Kumar Yadav) had been granted regular bail under similar circumstances, thus establishing the principle of parity.

  • Lengthy Detention without Trail Completion:

The court was mindful of the accused’s continued incarceration for over 7 years and delays in trial despite prior orders for expeditious proceedings.

  • Humanitarian Considerations:

The health condition of the petitioner’s father, who underwent amputation and needs constant care, was considered a humanitarian factor supporting the bail request.

Court’s Decision

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court reserved its final decision on granting regular bail, citing the need to examine the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 in detail. The matter was adjourned to a later date (07.12.2023) for further hearing. However, the judge did not issue any adverse orders and expressed a cautious approach, reflecting the seriousness of the charges while acknowledging the arguments on prolonged custody and weak evidence. The final decision on bail was not conclusively pronounced in the provided document but is pending consideration.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top