Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Writing 'Main Choor Hoon' On Man Who Was Later Allegedly Killed

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused in a case where a person allegedly died after being humiliated by having half of his head forcibly shaved and being chased to the roof by the accused persons. The Court held that the nature of allegations and the stage of investigation warranted custodial interrogation.Justice Sumeet Goel passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by the accused Shashi Kant Dwivedi observing that, "At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation."The Court highlighted that the CCTV footage relating to the incident has also been obtained which shows the deceased entering the house during the night where the accused persons were present.Dwivedi had filed the plea seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR registered in Gurugram for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).As per the prosecution case, the deceased Manjeet Kumar was allegedly subjected to humiliation by the petitioner along with co-accused Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh. It was alleged that the accused forcibly shaved half of the deceased's head and wrote the words “Main chor hoon” on the shaved portion using a marker pen.The prosecution further alleged that the deceased, terrified by the act, ran to the roof to save himself. The accused persons allegedly followed him and, in furtherance of their common intention, pushed him from behind, causing him to fall from the roof and die.Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that his alleged role was limited to borrowing a hair-cutting machine used for shaving the deceased's head. It was further contended that no injury had been attributed to the petitioner and that there was no motive alleged against him to commit murder. The petitioner also pointed out that prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and family members of the deceased, had turned hostile.The State opposed the plea, arguing that the allegations were serious and that the investigation was still ongoing. It submitted that the petitioner had not yet been arrested and that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover material evidence and to properly investigate the circumstances leading to the death.After examining the records, the Court noted that the Trial Court rightly observed that whether the deceased was pushed from the roof or jumped under the pressure, fear or instigation caused by the accused persons is a matter that would be unearthed during the course of investigation."The marker pen used for writing the humiliating words on the head of the deceased is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the statement of barber – Ramkumar Thakur, recorded during investigation, reveals that the petitioner along with co-accused – Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh had forcibly taken the hair cutting machine from his shop and shaved half of the deceased's head," Justice Goel added.While considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court emphasised that it must strike a balance between protecting individual liberty and safeguarding societal interests, particularly in cases involving serious offences.Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State v. Anil Sharma (1997), the Court observed that custodial interrogation can often be essential for effective investigation, as it enables investigators to gather useful information and uncover concealed material.Finding that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and that the investigation was at a crucial stage, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail could potentially allow the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.Title: Shashi Kant Dwivedi v. State of HaryanaClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Writing 'Main Choor Hoon' On Man Who Was Later Allegedly Killed

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags