Right To Speedy Trial Is Not A ‘Free Pass’ For Every Undertrial To Be Enlarged On Bail: Delhi HC Denies Bail To Gangster Neeraj Sehrawat
The Delhi High Court denied bail to a gangster who was accused of killing jail inmates while travelling in the jail van.
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to gangster Neeraj Sehrawat (also known as Neeraj Bawaniya) being accused of killing jail inmates.
The accused gangster filed a Bail Application seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed, “To reiterate, in the present case, bail is not being denied so as to inflict pre-trial punishment upon the petitioner, but in view of the petitioner’s grave criminal antecedents and demonstrable recidivistic tendencies, as discussed above. It may be said that the right to speedy trial derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not a ‘free-pass’ for every undertrial, demanding that he be enlarged on bail regardless of his criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence. In matters such as this, the larger interests of society must prevail over the individual rights of an undertrial.”
The Bench remarked that on first glance, it is a simple bail plea, which could have been disposed of by the Court, one way or the other, by a brief Order; however, it turns-out that the same is not a ‘garden-variety’ Bail Petition.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for the Petitioner/Accused while ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was lodged arising from an incident where a violent quarrel erupted between undertrial prisoners while they were being ferried in a jail van from the Rohini Court lock-up to Tihar Jail, New Delhi which led to the death of two of the prisoners in the jail van. It was alleged that some of the other prisoners were involved in this and there were total nine prisoners in the jail van. The Petitioner/Accused was one of them.
It was further alleged that the Head Constable who was on duty in jail van, witnessed a heated altercation between the Petitioner and the deceased prisoners. It was also alleged that, while travelling in the jail van, the Petitioner attacked the deceased prisoners who were brought down on the floor of the van; and subsequently, he along with other prisoners, wrapped gamchas around the necks of the two, hauled them across the floor, and snuffed the life out of them. Hence, the Petitioner was before the High Court, seeking bail.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “What these circumstances betray is 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 circumstances show that the perpetrators of the crime were utterly uninhibited and intractable despite the presence of armed guards.”
The Court added that such perverse fearlessness of the perpetrators makes it wonder whether it would be safe to release the Petitioner from custody and set him at-large in society, trusting that he would not commit any other grievous offence.
“… the petitioner is stated to be the leader of a notorious criminal gang, which he runs under his own name. According to the prosecution, the 'Neeraj Bawania Gang' engages inter-alia in kidnapping, extortion, and contract-killing; and commands fear and dread in society”, it further noted.
The Court also took note of the fact that the Petitioner has a long list of involvements in serious criminal offences, including offences punishable with imprisonment for life, or with death and that the list runs into some 28 serious criminal cases, in various jurisdictions, across States.
“… the chronology of events shows that the 03 cases in which he was convicted relate to offences which the petitioner committed while he was on bail in other cases. This is proof-positive that the petitioner has serious proclivity to commit offences and the apprehension of the State in that regard is not merely speculative or hypothetical but the petitioner has shown it to be so by his own conduct”, it observed.
Moreover, the Court said that, when there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, including convictions for offences committed while on bail in other cases, the apprehension that the Petitioner suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.
“… regrettably this court finds itself unable to allow the present bail petition, which is accordingly dismissed. … However, this court cannot help but express its consternation about the delay in conducting trial in the subject FIR, which has given to the petitioner a ground to seek release on regular bail. The completion of trial in the present case brooks no further delay. In the circumstances, without setting-out any timelines, this court urges the learned trial court to conclude the trial in the present case without any further undue delay”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Bail Application.
Cause Title- Neeraj Sehrawat @ Neeraj Bawaniya v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:176)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocates 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.
Respondent: ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya and Advocate Abhijeet Kumar.
