Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the accused under Section 4391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail registered under Sections 3022/120-B3/344 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., stated that in the present case, the accused had suffered judicial custody of over nine years as an undertrial, and it was not clear as to how long the trial would take to conclude. The accused was stated to be the head of the dreaded ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’, and therefore, regardless of how long he might have been in jail in the present case, this court was not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the accused would not indulge in criminality again and would not be a threat to the society at large. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, a violent quarrel erupted between undertrial prisoners while they were being ferried in a jail van. The quarrel led to two of the prisoners in the jail van being done to death by some of the other prisoners who were housed in the same compartment of the jail van. At the relevant time, there were nine prisoners in the jail van. The accused was one of them.
As per the allegations, one Head Constable who was on duty in jail van, witnessed a heated altercation between the accused on one side and ‘V’ and ‘P’ on other. The accused attacked ‘V’ and ‘P’, and along with other prisoners, the accused wrapped gamchas around the necks of the two victims, hauled them across the floor, and snuffed the life out of them. Thereafter, the jail van was escorted straight to the hospital, where both victims were declared as ‘brought dead’. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, including the present accused.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the subject of the FIR in the present case, was of no ordinary crime. It was the one that showed exceptional brazenness, audacity and depravity on the part of the perpetrators, as it was committed within the small and closely guarded and monitored confines of a jail van. The Court stated that for the reasons, which were very hard to fathom, the armed guards in the jail were unable to prevent the murders. What these circumstances betray was not just the horror of a double murder committed under the watch of armed police guards, but also unashamed brazenness and menacing brutality on the part of the perpetrators of the crime.
The Court stated that the circumstances showed that the perpetrators of the crime were utterly uninhibited and intractable despite the presence of armed guards. Further, the accused was stated to be the leader of a notorious criminal gang, which he ran under his own name. According to the prosecution, the ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’ engaged in kidnapping, extortion, and contract-killing; and commanded fear and dread in society. The Court further stated that the accused had a long list of involvements in serious criminal offences, including offences punishable with imprisonment for life, or with death.
The Court stated that though it was true that a court must lean towards constitutionalism, and the right of an accused to a speedy trial, was an overarching and sacrosanct consideration, mere delay in trial was not sufficient to warrant a finding that the accused had been deprived of his right to speedy trial. The delay was only one of the factors to be considered before deciding to enlarge the accused on bail. The Court stated that in the present case, the delay in conducting trial had been occasioned inter-alia by the fact that three of the co-accused persons had absconded while on bail; which was certainly a factor to be considered by this court.
The Court stated that in the present case, the accused had suffered judicial custody of over nine years as an undertrial, and it was not clear as to how long the trial would take to conclude. The accused was stated to be the head of the dreaded ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’, and therefore, regardless of how long he might have been in jail in the present case, this court was not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the accused would not indulge in criminality again and would not be a threat to the society at large. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
The Court further stated that the bail was not being denied to inflict pre-trial punishment upon the accused. However, considering the accused’s grave criminal antecedents and demonstrable recidivistic tendencies, it might be said that the right to speedy trial derived from Article 21 of the Constitution was not a ‘free-pass’ for every undertrial to be released on bail. In such matters, the larger interests of society must prevail over the individual rights of an undertrial. The Court further urged the Trial Court to conclude the trial in the present case, without any further delay.
[Neeraj Sehrawat v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 1203 of 2024, decided on 15-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Siddharth S. Yadav, Gagan Bhatnagar, Rahul Yadav, Ayush Kumar Singh, Kashish Ahuja, Sneha Bakshi Ram, Arjan Singh Mandla, Sana Singh, Punya Rekha Angagar, Rahul and Tushar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State with Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate with Insp. Suneel Siddhu, P.S. Mangolpuri and Insp. Brahm Prakash, P.S. Crime Branch.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 103 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
