Serious Allegations of Humiliation Leading to Death Justify Custodial Interrogation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail

Case Name: Shashi Kant Dwivedi v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 06 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-12096-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where serious allegations indicate the accused’s active participation in acts of humiliation and harassment that allegedly led to the victim’s death. When investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation is necessary to recover evidence and ascertain the sequence of events, grant of pre-arrest bail would impede effective investigation.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No.164 dated 15.08.2025 registered at Police Station Sector 17/18, Gurugram under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to the offences of murder and common intention.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with co-accused Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh subjected the deceased, Manjeet Kumar, to humiliation by forcibly shaving half of his head and writing the words “Main chor hoon” on the shaved portion using a marker. The victim allegedly ran to the roof of the building out of fear, after which the accused followed him and pushed him from behind, resulting in his death.

The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the only allegation against him was that he had borrowed a hair-cutting machine used for shaving the deceased’s head. It was contended that he neither caused any injury nor had any motive to commit murder. The petitioner also relied on the fact that key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and family members of the deceased, had turned hostile.

It was further submitted that nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner and that he was willing to join the investigation. On this basis, the petitioner sought protection from arrest.

The State opposed the bail plea, arguing that the allegations were grave and that the investigation was still ongoing. It was contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the marker used in the incident and to collect further evidence. The prosecution also relied on the statement of a barber who stated that the petitioner and co-accused had forcibly taken a hair-cutting machine from his shop and used it to shave the deceased’s head. CCTV footage was also stated to show the presence of the accused persons at the scene.

The Court observed that the allegations, if taken at face value, indicated active participation of the petitioner in humiliating and harassing the deceased. The Court noted that the acts attributed to the accused demonstrated prima facie involvement in conduct that subjected the victim to extreme mental and physical trauma.

The Court further held that the question whether the deceased was pushed from the roof or jumped due to pressure, fear or instigation by the accused would emerge only after proper investigation. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was considered necessary.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation can be significantly more effective in uncovering relevant information and that anticipatory bail should not be granted where it may hamper investigation in serious offences.

Balancing the rights of the accused with societal interest and the need for effective investigation, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for effective investigation and recovery of evidence.