Archive · 8 Dec 2025
Delhi High Court Cancels Murder Accused's Bail
The Delhi High Court has canceled the bail of a man named Vikas Tomar, who was accused of paying money to kill someone.
The lower court had given him bail, but the high court said this was wrong because it didn't think about how serious the crime was or how it might affect the investigation.
The high court said that giving bail in this case could make it harder to find evidence and make the trial fair.
The state argued that Tomar was involved in the crime and didn't cooperate with the investigation, while Tomar's lawyer said he was willing to help.
The high court decided to cancel the bail because it thought it was not justified.
The Delhi High Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to Vikas Tomar, a murder accused.
The high court termed the trial court's order as perverse and unjustified for not considering the gravity of the offence.
The court highlighted the risk of interference with the investigation and the fairness of the trial.
The state argued that Tomar had a significant role in the conspiracy and evaded cooperation.
Tomar's counsel argued that the allegation of non-cooperation was unfounded and that his client was willing to participate in the investigation.
- Who
- Vikas Tomar, the murder accused, and the Delhi High Court
- What
- The Delhi High Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to Vikas Tomar, terming the trial court order as perverse and unjustified
- When
- The specific date is not mentioned in the article
- Where
- Delhi High Court
- Why
- The high court found that the session court's order did not properly consider the gravity of the offence, the accused's role, or the real risk of interference with the investigation
- Accused Name
- Vikas Tomar
- Alleged Payment
- Rs 4 lakh to shooters
- Court's Observation
- Order was perverse and unjustified
- Key Evidence
- Testimonies of co-accused, digital evidence, circumstantial evidence
- Court's Concern
- Risk of interference with investigation and trial fairness
- State's Argument
- Accused had a significant role in the conspiracy and evaded cooperation
- Accused's Defense
- Full willingness to participate in the investigation
- Court's Decision
- Set aside the anticipatory bail granted to the accused