Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed the bail petition filed by Neeraj Sehrawat/Bawania for the murder of an undertrial prisoner inside the jail premises. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “this court is not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not indulge in criminality again and would not be a threat to the society at large”. 

According to allegations, Head Constable Hem Prakash of the Delhi Armed Police, who was on duty in the van, witnessed a heated argument between Sehrawat and the victims. After investigations, a charge sheet was filed against the accused, including Sehrawat. However, Sehrawat denied the allegations, claiming that the charges were implausible, as prisoners were prohibited from carrying items like towels, belts, or ropes inside the van.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing Neeraj Sehrawat, argued that his client had been in judicial custody for over nine years. He pointed out that the prosecution had listed 79 witnesses, of whom only 32 had been examined so far. 

In response, Additional Solicitor General Rupali Bandhopadhya, appearing for the State, opposed the bail plea, highlighting Sehrawat’s extensive criminal history. She noted that Sehrawat led a gang, infamously named after him, that engaged in serious crimes such as extortion and contract killings. The State presented an SCRB report detailing multiple criminal cases against the petitioner, arguing that his record was a critical factor in denying bail.

The court observed that the petition, while initially appearing to be a routine bail application, involved extraordinary circumstances. Sehrawat was alleged to be the leader of the "Neeraj Bawania Gang," known for spreading terror through heinous crimes. His criminal record included approximately 28 serious cases across jurisdictions, with convictions in three instances, including one under the Gangsters Act. 

“The petitioner has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail”, the court added. The court observed that the petitioner had committed offenses even while out on bail, demonstrating a pattern of recidivism.

The petitioner contended that his prolonged incarceration violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. However, the court stressed the need to balance individual rights with societal interests, the severity of the offense, and the petitioner’s behavior. 

The court highlighted, “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”. The court further noted that the delay in trial was due to the co-accused absconding and complicating the proceedings.

Despite the petitioner’s nine-year custody as an undertrial, the court found no assurance that granting bail would deter him from reoffending. His history of committing crimes while on bail undermined confidence in his adherence to legal obligations if released. The court reiterated that bail was not an automatic right but required a careful evaluation of factors beyond the duration of custody.

Given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, proven recidivism, and the risk he posed to society, the court denied the bail plea. While rejecting the application, the court expressed concern over the prolonged delay in trial proceedings and urged the trial court to expedite the case. It clarified that the denial of bail was not punitive but necessary to prioritize public safety over individual rights in such cases.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan with 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
For Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Rupali Bandhopadhya with Advocate Abhijeet Kumar
Case Title: Neeraj Sehrawat/Bawania v State (2025:DHC:176)