In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of notorious gangster Neeraj Bawania, implicated in the 2015 double murder of two prisoners in a jail van. Justice Anup J. Bhambhani described the murders as an act of “exceptional brazenness, audacity, and depravity,” highlighting the severity of the crime committed within the confines of a closely monitored jail van.
The court expressed disbelief at the inability of armed guards present in the van to prevent the murders, pointing to a disturbing level of brutality and fearlessness among the perpetrators. “The circumstances not only reveal the horror of a double murder under the watch of armed police guards but also the unashamed brazenness and menacing brutality,” Justice Bhambhani remarked in his judgment.
Neeraj Bawania, alleged leader of the ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’, had sought bail on the grounds of a prolonged trial and his nine-year incarceration as an undertrial. However, the court firmly rejected these grounds, stating that Article 21 of the Constitution does not provide a “freepass” for bail regardless of an individual’s criminal history and the nature of the offence.
During the ill-fated transfer from the Rohini Court lock-up to Tihar Jail, Bawania was accused of strangulating two co-prisoners with ‘gamchas’ (towels), leading to their deaths. The court noted Bawania’s potential danger to society if released, questioning the safety of allowing such a figure freedom while his trial was pending.
While acknowledging the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21, the court emphasized that the decision on bail must consider various factors, including the threat the accused might pose to society. “The petitioner’s status as head of a dreaded gang and his long history of involvement in serious offences are critical considerations,” Justice Bhambhani explained.
The court urged the trial court to expedite the proceedings without further delay but maintained that the protection of societal interests must weigh heavily against the personal liberties of an individual accused of heinous crimes. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious stance on granting bail in cases involving figures with extensive criminal backgrounds and potential recidivism.
