Dying Declaration Alone Can Sustain Conviction Even Without Magistrate: Delhi HC

In a significant observation concerning the admissibility of dying declarations and the standards for granting bail in conspiracy cases, the Delhi High Court dismissed a regular bail application filed by an accused named in a fatal shooting incident. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, it cannot conduct a mini-trial or venture into the veracity of evidence that is subject to trial.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who was considering a petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought relief in a case registered under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 following the death of a man who was shot during a targeted attack on NH-24.

Admissibility of Dying Declarations and Judicial Discretion

The High Court underscored that a dying declaration does not necessarily require the presence of a Magistrate or a formal medical certificate of fitness to be considered valid at the prima facie stage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Regarding the nature of the dying declaration, it need not be gone into at this stage as the probative value thereof and the weight of evidence thereon will be considerations for trial. Even otherwise, as held in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra a dying declaration need not always be recorded by a Magistrate and/ or supported by any medical certification as to the deceased’s fitness to speak as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. Also, there is no denial about the deceased being mentally fit till before. As of now, there is no prima facie material to dislodge the dying declaration."

Court's Rationale on Conspiracy and Criminal Antecedents

Addressing the allegations of conspiracy and the reliability of witness statements, the Court noted that the applicant was explicitly named by the deceased before his passing. This statement is governed by Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Furthermore, the court took a stern view of the applicant's conduct within the prison system and his history of criminal activities.

Background:

The dispute originated on March 10, 2025, when the complainant and the deceased were allegedly intercepted by several individuals in a car. According to the FIR, a gunshot was fired at the deceased, which eventually led to his death at LBS Hospital. Before succumbing to his injuries, the deceased reportedly named the applicant as one of the persons involved in the incident.

The applicant’s counsel argued that the arrest was a result of false implication, highlighting that the applicant was not physically present at the scene and that Call Detail Records (CDR) did not show any incriminating communication on the day of the incident. It was further contended that the dying declaration was unreliable as the deceased had suffered injuries to the lungs and heart, making speech improbable. The prosecution, however, relied on the eye-witness account and the deceased's specific naming of the applicant, along with seven previous criminal antecedents of the accused.

Applying the principles laid down in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra and Naeem vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "2024 INSC 169": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 657), the Court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe the involvement of the applicant. Noting that the applicant's conduct was marked as "Unsatisfactory" in the Nominal Roll, the Court expressed apprehension regarding witness tampering and dismissed the bail application.

Case Details:
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3340/2025
Case Title: NAZIM vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Mr. Akshay Kumar, Mr. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Ms. Vanshika Singh and Ms. Apoorva Khosla, Advs.; Insp. B, Dutt Vishnoi and Insp. Rajiv Kumar, PS.: Ghazipur.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 377