Supreme Court Refuses Bail To Accused In Meerut Bride-To-Be Murder Case; Justice Vikram Nath Calls Him ‘Girlfriend Killer’

The Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court dated May 15, 2025, which had refused bail to the accused, Sagar, in a 2020 murder case arising from Uttar Pradesh's Meerut district.

During the hearing, Justice Nath expressed strong disapproval of the allegations against the accused. “My God! You killed the girlfriend. You killed the father-in-law, brother-in-law, everyone. You are a daredevil. Haven't you seen that movie, Bihar one with Ajay Devgn,” the judge remarked.

The Court further observed: “You're a girlfriend killer... this is like a movie.”

The remarks appeared to reference the 2006 film Omkara, starring Ajay Devgn and based on William Shakespeare's Othello, in which the protagonist kills his wife after suspecting infidelity.

After indicating that it was not inclined to grant bail, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court at a later stage. The Court permitted the withdrawal.

Sagar had filed the SLP through AoR Robin Khokhar.

The case stems from an FIR lodged in June 2020 by the brother of the deceased woman.

According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly obsessed with the woman and wanted to marry her, despite her lack of interest in him. The woman was scheduled to marry another person on June 29, 2020. The FIR alleged that on the night of June 27, 2020, while wedding preparations were underway at the family home, Sagar, along with several associates, arrived at the residence and opened fire on family members.

The attack allegedly resulted in the death of the bride-to-be, Anchal, at the scene, while her father later succumbed to injuries. Another family member sustained firearm injuries. The accused was subsequently arrested and has remained in custody since 2020.

Seeking bail, the petitioner argued that he had spent nearly six years in prison and that the trial was progressing slowly. According to the plea, only six out of 49 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. The petitioner also relied on parity with several co-accused who had already been granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.

Questioning the prosecution's version, the plea contended that despite the FIR stating that wedding festivities were underway and relatives and neighbours were present, no independent witness had been cited.

The petitioner further pointed to portions of the informant's cross-examination, claiming that the alleged motive of one-sided love was based on hearsay and newspaper reports. The plea also questioned the delay in registration of the FIR and challenged the recovery of the alleged weapon as fabricated. It was further argued that key witnesses had already been examined and there was no possibility of witness tampering.

However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded to grant relief and ultimately allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea after expressing its unwillingness to interfere with the High Court's decision. "Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn," the Court recorded in the order.