Introduction:
Dispute Between Shashi Kant Dwivedi and the State of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dealt with a disturbing criminal case involving allegations of humiliation, intimidation, and the subsequent death of a man who allegedly fell from the roof of a building after being chased by the accused. In the case of Shashi Kant Dwivedi v. State of Haryana, the Court examined whether the accused was entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail in light of the serious allegations levelled against him and the stage of the ongoing investigation. The case arose from an incident in Gurugram where the deceased, Manjeet Kumar, was allegedly subjected to degrading treatment by the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. According to the prosecution, the accused forcibly shaved half of the deceased’s head and wrote humiliating words on the shaved portion before chasing him to the roof, which eventually resulted in his fatal fall. The incident raised serious questions about criminal liability, dignity, and the circumstances leading to the death of the victim. Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was called upon to decide whether the accused deserved protection from arrest while the investigation was still in progress. After considering the allegations, evidence collected during preliminary investigation, and legal principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court observed that the material available at this stage established a prima facie case against the accused and that custodial interrogation was necessary to ensure an effective and thorough investigation. The judgment highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain between safeguarding individual liberty and protecting the interests of society in serious criminal cases.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Shashi Kant Dwivedi, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report registered in Gurugram under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Through his counsel, the petitioner strongly denied the allegations made against him and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. According to the petitioner, the prosecution had exaggerated the facts and had incorrectly attributed a role to him in the alleged incident leading to the death of Manjeet Kumar.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accused had no intention whatsoever to cause harm to the deceased, let alone commit an act that would lead to his death. It was contended that the prosecution’s narrative lacked credible evidence directly linking the petitioner to the alleged act of pushing the deceased from the roof. The defence emphasized that the allegations regarding physical violence or direct involvement in causing the fatal fall were vague and unsupported by clear proof.
A key argument put forward by the petitioner was that his alleged role in the incident was minimal and limited in nature. According to the defence, the petitioner had merely borrowed a hair-cutting machine which was later used in shaving the deceased’s head. The counsel argued that this act alone could not establish his involvement in the more serious allegations of humiliation, intimidation, or murder. The petitioner claimed that the prosecution had wrongly attempted to portray him as an active participant in the incident despite the absence of concrete evidence showing that he physically harmed the deceased.
Another important point raised by the defence related to the absence of any motive on the part of the petitioner. The counsel argued that criminal cases involving allegations of murder or abetment of death typically involve some form of personal animosity, financial dispute, or other underlying motive. However, in the present case, the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any such motive linking the petitioner to the alleged crime. Without a clear motive, the defence argued, the accusations against the petitioner were weak and insufficient to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner also highlighted the fact that several prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and family members of the deceased, had reportedly turned hostile during the course of proceedings. According to the defence, this development cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. If the key witnesses themselves were not supporting the allegations, it indicated that the case against the petitioner lacked strength and reliability. The defence therefore argued that continuing to treat the petitioner as a suspect deserving of custodial interrogation was unjustified.
Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the petitioner was a law-abiding citizen who had cooperated with the investigation and had no intention of evading the legal process. He contended that arresting the petitioner at this stage would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment. The defence also stressed that anticipatory bail is meant to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest and should be granted when the accusations appear doubtful or when custodial interrogation is not essential.
Based on these submissions, the petitioner requested the Court to grant anticipatory bail and allow him to remain at liberty while cooperating with the investigation. He maintained that there was no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with evidence, and therefore the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail was justified in the circumstances of the case.
Arguments Presented by the State:
The State of Haryana strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea and argued that the allegations against the petitioner were extremely serious and required thorough investigation. The State’s counsel submitted that the case involved not merely a dispute between individuals but an act of humiliation and intimidation that ultimately resulted in the death of a person. Given the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner could not claim protection from arrest at such an early stage of the investigation.
According to the prosecution, the incident was not an isolated or accidental occurrence but a deliberate act carried out by the petitioner and his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention. The State alleged that the accused persons had forcibly shaved half of the deceased’s head and written the humiliating phrase “Main chor hoon” on the shaved portion using a marker pen. This act, according to the prosecution, was intended to publicly shame and degrade the victim.
The State further submitted that the deceased, deeply frightened and humiliated by the treatment meted out to him, attempted to escape by running to the roof of the building. However, the accused persons allegedly chased him to the roof and continued to intimidate him. According to the prosecution’s version, the accused ultimately pushed the deceased from behind, causing him to fall from the roof and sustain fatal injuries.
The State emphasized that the investigation was still at a crucial stage and several important aspects of the case were yet to be examined. The prosecution pointed out that the petitioner had not yet been arrested and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the complete sequence of events leading to the victim’s death. Without such interrogation, investigators might be unable to recover key evidence or determine the precise role played by each accused person.
One of the important pieces of evidence referred to by the State was the CCTV footage obtained during the investigation. According to the prosecution, the footage showed the deceased entering the house during the night when the accused persons were present inside. This evidence, the State argued, supported the prosecution’s claim that the accused were directly connected to the events leading to the incident.
The State also highlighted that certain crucial items connected to the crime had not yet been recovered. In particular, the marker pen allegedly used to write humiliating words on the victim’s head was still missing. The prosecution argued that recovery of such evidence required custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Allowing him to remain free on anticipatory bail could hamper efforts to locate these items and reconstruct the exact sequence of events.
Additionally, the State referred to the statement of Ramkumar Thakur, a barber whose statement had been recorded during the investigation. According to this statement, the petitioner and his co-accused had forcibly taken a hair-cutting machine from the barber’s shop and used it to shave half of the deceased’s head. The prosecution argued that this testimony clearly linked the petitioner to the act of humiliation inflicted upon the victim.
The State further expressed concern that granting anticipatory bail could enable the petitioner to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Since the investigation was still ongoing, there was a genuine risk that the accused might attempt to interfere with the process if granted protection from arrest. Therefore, the prosecution strongly urged the Court to reject the anticipatory bail plea.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
After carefully considering the arguments presented by both sides, Justice Sumeet Goel examined the material available on record and the legal principles governing anticipatory bail. The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect individuals from unjustified arrest, but it must be granted cautiously, particularly in cases involving serious criminal allegations.
The Court first observed that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and involved acts that allegedly resulted in the humiliation and death of a person. The preliminary investigation conducted by the police had revealed certain materials that appeared to support the prosecution’s case. At this stage, the Court emphasized, it was not required to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but only to examine whether a prima facie case existed.
Justice Goel noted that the material placed on record, including CCTV footage and witness statements, provided a reasonable basis for suspecting the petitioner’s involvement in the incident. Therefore, the Court concluded that it could not be said at this stage that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.
The Court also referred to the observations made by the Trial Court, which had noted that the exact circumstances leading to the victim’s fall from the roof were still unclear. It was yet to be determined whether the deceased was directly pushed by the accused or whether he jumped under pressure, fear, or provocation caused by their actions. The Court observed that such questions could only be answered through a thorough investigation.
Another important factor considered by the Court was the recovery of evidence. Justice Goel noted that the marker pen allegedly used to write humiliating words on the victim’s head had not yet been recovered. The Court also took into account the statement of the barber, which indicated that the petitioner and his co-accused had forcibly taken a hair-cutting machine from his shop to carry out the act of shaving the victim’s head. These aspects, the Court observed, highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the complete truth.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Anil Sharma (1997), which emphasized that custodial interrogation can play a vital role in criminal investigations. According to the Supreme Court, interrogation conducted while the accused is in custody can often help investigators gather crucial information and discover concealed evidence that might otherwise remain hidden.
Justice Goel further stressed that while individual liberty is an important constitutional value, it must sometimes yield to the broader interests of society in cases involving serious offences. Courts must strike a careful balance between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is served. Granting anticipatory bail in situations where the investigation is incomplete and evidence is yet to be recovered could potentially undermine the effectiveness of the investigation.
Taking all these factors into account, the Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would not be appropriate. The Court held that such relief could impede the investigation and might also create the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that the petitioner did not deserve the extraordinary protection sought.