Kanjhawala Hit-And-Run Case: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Amit Khanna, Cites Gravity Of Alleged Murder
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Amit Khanna, an accused in the Kanjhawala hit-and-run case in which a 20-year old girl was killed after she was dragged under a car for around 13 km.Justice Girish Kathpalia said that the gravity and manner in which the alleged murder was committed dissuaded the Court from granting bail to Khanna. The Court dismissed the regular bail plea filed by Khanna...
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Amit Khanna, an accused in the Kanjhawala hit-and-run case in which a 20-year old girl was killed after she was dragged under a car for around 13 km.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that the gravity and manner in which the alleged murder was committed dissuaded the Court from granting bail to Khanna.
The Court dismissed the regular bail plea filed by Khanna in connection with the FIR registered at Police Station Sultan Puri for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 212, 182, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court's order came after the Investigating Officer placed on record five additional CCTV footage links to support the prosecution's case that Khanna was driving the offending car. The CCTV footage was also played in open court during the hearing.
According to the Delhi Police, the FIR was initially registered against one Deepak, Khanna's cousin, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Subsequent investigation allegedly revealed that Khanna, and not Deepak, was driving the car at the time of the roadside accident.
The investigation further revealed that after the deceased woman was hit by the car, her body became entangled underneath the vehicle and was dragged for around 13 kilometres. Following this, the FIR was converted to offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
Denying bail to Khanna, the Court noted that the CCTV footage showed the offending car being handed over to Khanna, who occupied the driver's seat.
“However, the CCTV footages do not depict face of the accused/applicant at the exact moment of the alleged incident,” the Court noted.
Khanna's counsel argued that he has remained in custody since January 01, 2023, and that there was no evidence connecting him with the alleged murder.
It was submitted that between January 01 and January 6, 2023, there was no case against Khanna as the driver of the offending vehicle.
The defence also questioned the testimony of alleged eyewitness Nidhi, who was riding pillion on the scooter being driven by the deceased. It was argued that Nidhi's claim that she could identify Khanna as the driver emerged only in her third statement, recorded about a week after the incident.
Khanna's counsel also argued out that the statement came after the disclosure statement of co-accused Ashutosh was recorded on January 06, 2023.
It was further argued that the Facial Recognition System results had not been placed on record and that the CCTV footage did not show Khanna's face at the precise time of the incident.
The prosecution, however, strongly opposed the bail plea, referring to the grave manner in which the deceased was allegedly killed after getting entangled underneath the car.
The police submitted that Khanna and his associates, who were allegedly inside the car, came out after the deceased had been dragged for some distance and saw her body entangled underneath the vehicle, but nevertheless continued driving.
The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of Nidhi as well as the CCTV footage, besides forensic evidence. It told the Court that the DNA analysis of flesh recovered from the offending car matched the DNA of the deceased.
It was also pointed out that Khanna had refused to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings.
Examining the testimony of Nidhi, the Court noted that although she had stated that the deceased was drunk at the time of the incident, she also said that Khanna and the other occupants of the offending car were heavily drunk.
The Court observed that the CCTV footage showed the offending car being handed over to Khanna to drive and that, even after hitting the deceased and dragging her body underneath the vehicle, he allegedly continued driving.
Justice Kathpalia said that Khanna subsequently stopped and got down from the vehicle, but despite seeing the deceased entangled underneath the car, allegedly drove further for around 13 kilometres.
“As mentioned above, the CCTV footages depict that the offending car was handed over to the accused/applicant to drive and even after hitting the deceased and dragging her body under the car, the accused/applicant continued to drive, after which he stopped and got down, but even after seeking the deceased entangled under the car, he drove further up to 13 km,” the Court said.
It added: “The gravity and manner in which the murder was allegedly committed dissuades me to grant bail. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.”
Title: AMIT KHANNA v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI