Murderous Dancing

Rohit Bansal along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in one Santro, UP-16-AM-6317 and Honda Civic, DL-7CF-4118. Around midnight, while dancing, Rohit Bansal’s hand struck an individual to whom he said ‘sorry’. The individual abused and questioned; took a glass and hit. The matter was pacified by bouncers/security personnel. Rohit Bansal and his friends were sent out and when at IIT Gate, Rohit Bansal realized his mobile phone was missing. He along with Rupesh, Sonu and Monu went back to Shanghai Club in the Santro. When back, one of the individuals with whom an altercation had taken place, threatened to teach them a lesson; all the accused/assailants started beating them; one of the assailants brought an iron rod, another lifted a cemented brick and hit Rupesh; all ran. Rupesh, admitted at AIIMS Hospital [Trauma Centre], succumbed to injuries. As many as 16 months later, bail was finally granted to all accused, one by one, and cancelled by High Court, one by one.

There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. Courts granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Seemingly, the CCTV footage did not cover the entire place of occurrence. High Court rightly set aside the orders granting bail. In crimes like murder, the mere fact, the accused was in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration. The manner in which the deceased was allegedly attacked and the number of injuries inflicted on him prima facie indicates pre-meditation. Apart from CCTV footage, there are other materials on record to show the prima facie case against the accused. In the present case, trial is at a very crucial stage. It hardly requires to be stated, once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases, where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same may indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation. The accused are directed to surrender.”

Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129.


Also see, Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6335 of 2021] decided on 17.12.2021 and Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, [Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2022] decided on 11.01.2022.