The Delhi High Court recently refused bail to a person accused in a case concerning the murder of an old couple at the behest of their daughter and her paramour (Raghvender vs State).
Bodies of the deceased husband and wife were found in suitcases near a dirty sewer.
It was revealed that the cause of death in both cases was asphyxia because of ante-mortem smothering.
The children of the deceased couple levelled allegation against their sister Davinder Kaur and her paramour, Prince Dixit for the murder.
After being arrested in March 2019, the Kaur and Dixit confessed the crime. They disclosed that they hatched the conspiracy to kill the old couple to grab their property.
They further disclosed that one Diwaker and the bail applicant, Raghvender Singh (petitioner) committed the murder for which Rs 50,000 was promised.
Chargesheet was subsequently filed, which mentioned that the earrings of the deceased woman were recovered from the petitioner’s residence.
It also stated that all the accused identified the place where the dead bodies were dumped, and CCTV footage was found of Kaur and Dixit having a suitcase between them.
Petitioner sought bail on the ground that he had been in judicial custody since March 2019 and that CCTV footage did not show his presence with the suitcases containing the dead bodies.
He also contended that the fact that the earrings of Gurmeet Kaur were recovered from his house do not connect him to the crime of murder.
The State opposed grant of bail and argued that the petitioner was an accomplice and was in contact touch with Dixit.
About 67 calls were made between the petitioner and Dixit over a period of 15 days near the date of the crime, it was added.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the petitioner is accused of the heinous crime of murdering an old couple.
“The petitioner is accused of a crime of double murder. There have been recoveries at the instance of the petitioner and the item recovered from his instance belong to the deceased and they have been duly identified by the son of the deceased. The petitioner was in constant touch with the prime accused,” the Court noted.
The Court further considered that the case was at initial stage and the charges were yet to be framed.
Therefore, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice or from tampering evidence could not be ruled out, the Court opined.
The Court also observed that the petitioner’s case was not identical with that of co-accused, Diwaker Singh who had been granted bail as Singh was in touch with the petitioner and not with the prime accused.
The bail plea was accordingly rejected.