Neeraj Sehrawat@ Bawania vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 July, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Neeraj Sehrawat@ Bawania vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 July, 2025

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeks interim bail for a period of 6 weeks on account of the medical condition of the Applicant's spouse. The Applicant is in custody in relation to FIR No. 1683/2015 dated 25th August, 2015, BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 1 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 registered under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Mangolpuri. The Applicant's request for regular bail has been rejected by this Court by judgment dated 15th January, 2025.1

2. The primary ground urged in support of interim bail is that the Applicant's wife is admitted in the ICU at RLKC Metro Heart Institute and requires immediate transfer to another medical facility for appropriate and life-saving treatment. It is submitted that the Applicant is the only person who is in a position to take such steps and make financial and logistical arrangements, as both his and his wife's family members have disowned them, and no other attendant or caregiver is available to facilitate the required medical intervention. This assertion is further corroborated by the fact that the Applicant's wife was admitted to the hospital with the help of their neighbours.

3. On the last date of hearing, the Court was apprised of certain inconsistencies and possible inaccuracies in the Previous Conviction/Involvement Report filed by the State. Accordingly, directions were issued to the State to submit a fresh and corrected Status Report detailing the Applicant's criminal antecedents, along with an affidavit explaining the basis of the earlier discrepancies. In compliance, the State has handed over the revised report and affidavit, both of which have been taken on record. As per the said report, the Applicant is allegedly involved in 28 criminal cases, the details of which are as follows:

1 BAIL APPLN. 1203/2024 BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 2 of 10

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 3 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 4 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36

4. Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Counsel for the Applicant, strongly contests the accuracy of the aforesaid report. He submits that the State has again failed to provide a correct account. Specifically, it is pointed out that in FIR No. 192/2012, listed as serial No. 14, the Applicant has already been acquitted, and in FIR No. 355/2024, listed serial No. 28, he has been released from custody. In support, relevant judicial orders confirming the same have been handed over and taken on record.

5. Nonetheless, Mr. Hariharan emphasizes that the pressing concern remains to be the critical medical condition of the Applicant's wife, which stands duly verified by the State and is supported by the medical records and MRI report placed on record. He submits that the nature of her condition warrants urgent treatment at a specialized medical facility, an aspect BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 5 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 acknowledged in the Status Report itself, wherein it is noted that RLKC Metro Hospital does not possess the requisite infrastructure to administer the necessary care. He submits that the Applicant had previously been granted custody parole by this Court order dated 30th June, 2025.2 However, the presence of multiple police officials during the hospital visit had severely disrupted medical operations and created logistical difficulties. He states that if this continues, the hospital authorities will decline to continue treatment. Mr. Hariharan argues that mere visitation rights or limited custody parole do not suffice, the Applicant must be permitted to interact freely with third parties to raise funds and make arrangements, which is not feasible if he is restricted to meeting only his wife and attending doctors.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, strongly opposes the plea for interim bail. He contends that the Applicant has a long history of criminal involvement and is associated with ongoing gang rivalries. He further submits that the claim regarding absence of familial support is contradicted by Mulakat records, which reveal that both the Applicant's wife and mother have previously visited him in jail on multiple occasions. He further points out that the MRI report relied upon by the Applicant is dated 15th April, 2025, however, the first application for interim bail was filed only in June, 2025, after a delay of approximately one and a half months. This delay, it is argued, casts doubt on the urgency and gravity of the medical condition and suggests that the plea may be a pretext, particularly since no steps were taken by any family member to shift the Applicant's wife to another hospital during this intervening period.

7. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and contentions and 2 in BAIL APPLN 2253/2025 BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 6 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 perused the material on record. The Court while granting interim bail, must evaluate the genuineness and severity of the medical condition and the likelihood of the Applicant absconding or misusing the liberty granted. In the present case, the medical condition of the Applicant's wife, her admission to the ICU and need for transfer, stands duly verified by the State. Nonetheless, the State has expressed strong apprehensions regarding the Applicant's potential flight risk based on prior criminal involvements. This concern is, indeed, neither unfounded nor indispensable. In fact, while rejecting the Applicant's request for regular bail, this Court, in its judgment dated 15th January, 20253 took note of the grave and heinous nature of the allegations against the Applicant and observed as follows:

"17. Although on first glance the present petition is a simple bail plea, which could have been disposed of by this court, one way or the other, by a brief order; however, it turns-out that this is not a garden-variety bail petition. The court says so for three reasons :

17.1. One, the case that is subject of FIR No.1683/2015 is no ordinary crime. It is one that shows exceptional brazenness, audacity and depravity on the part of the perpetrators, inasmuch as it was committed within the small and closely guarded and monitored confines of a jail van. At the risk of repetition, the allegation against the petitioner is that he, alongwith with other prisoners who were being ferried in a jail van, murdered 02 other prisoners inside that van by strangulating them with gamchas; and the murders were committed under the very nose and in the full view of armed guards of the 03rd battalion of the Delhi Armed Police. For reasons which are very hard to fathom, the armed guards in the jail van were unable to prevent the murders. What these circumstances betray is not just the horror of a double murder committed under the watch of armed police guards, but also unashamed brazenness and menacing brutality on the part of the perpetrators of the crime. The circumstances show that the perpetrators of the crime were utterly uninhibited and intractable despite the presence of armed guards. As per the allegations in the subject FIR, the petitioner was one of the perpetrators. Such perverse fearlessness of the perpetrators makes this court wonder whether it would be safe to release the petitioner from custody and set him at-large in society, trusting that he would not 3 In BAIL APPLN. 1203/2024 BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 7 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

17.2. Two, the petitioner is stated to be the leader of a notorious criminal gang, which he runs under his own name. According to the prosecution, the "Neeraj Bawania Gang" engages inter-alia in kidnapping, extortion, and contract-killing; and commands fear and dread in society; and 17.3. Three, the petitioner has a long list of involvements in serious criminal offences, including offences punishable with imprisonment for life, or with death. The list runs into some 28 serious criminal cases, in various jurisdictions, across States. However, as per the record, the petitioner has been acquitted in several of those cases and has been discharged in others; and has faced conviction only in 03 cases, as detailed above, including one conviction under the Gangsters Act. There is some discrepancy between the stand of the petitioner and the State as to whether he is presently in judicial custody only in the present case or also in some other case. The State says that the petitioner is still serving sentence for his conviction under the Gangsters Act, and is also in custody in another FIR. Be that as it may, the present bail plea relates only to case FIR No.1683/2015 dated 25.08.2015 registered under sections 302/120-B/34 IPC at P.S.: Mangol Puri, Delhi, in which the petitioner has been in continuous custody ever since the time of his arrest on 26.08.2015 till date.

xxx ... xxx ... xxx

19. Upon applying its mind to the submissions made by the parties, as well as what is borne-out from the record, in the opinion of this court the following inferences clearly arise :

19.1. The petitioner's contention that his history-sheet or criminal antecedents cannot be the prevailing criterion to deny him regular bail, is hard to accept. As pointed-out by the State despite the petitioner having been acquitted or discharged in several other cases, the chronology of events shows that the 03 cases in which he was convicted relate to offences which the petitioner committed while he was on bail in other cases. This is proof-positive that the petitioner has serious proclivity to commit offences and the apprehension of the State in that regard is not merely speculative or hypothetical but the petitioner has shown it to be so by his own conduct.

xxx ... xxx ... xxx

20. In the present case the record shows that 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. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, including convictions for offences committed while on bail in other cases, the apprehension that the petitioner suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's submission that he has served sentence for those crimes offers scant comfort to the court that no one else will be harmed by the petitioner if he is enlarged on bail this time."

[Emphasis Supplied] BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 8 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36

8. Therefore, while the Status Report reflects that the Applicant has secured acquittals in some cases and others are still pending trial, the Court cannot ignore the sheer number of cases in which he has been implicated. Moreover, in the present FIR, the Applicant is facing prosecution under Section 302 IPC, a charge of the most serious nature, involving allegations of murder. In light of the gravity of the offence and the Applicant's extensive criminal history, the apprehension of him absconding cannot be dismissed and remains a serious concern and thus, this parameter for grant of interim bail is not satisfied.

9. With respect to the medical condition of the Applicant's wife, the State's contention, that despite the MRI report being available, no steps were taken by other family members to shift her to a more suitable hospital for nearly a month, cannot be overlooked and casts doubt on the urgency now pleaded.

10. However, given the exceptional circumstances arising from the immediate medical needs of the Applicant's wife, the Court is inclined to allow limited relief purely on humanitarian grounds. To balance the the risk associated with releasing the Applicant on interim bail, this Court finds it appropriate to grant another custody parole, which would enable the Applicant to make necessary financial and logistical arrangements for his wife's transfer and treatment, without compromising the interests of justice and public safety.

11. Accordingly, the Superintendent, Central Jail, is directed to make necessary arrangements for escorting the Applicant to RLKC Metro Hospital, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, or to such other hospital where the BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 9 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36 Applicant's wife is advised to be is to be shifted for treatment. The custody parole shall be operative for a period of 3 days from the date of release, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on each of the said days. During this period, the Applicant shall be permitted to meet his wife and relatives. He shall also be permitted to consult doctors and make requisite arrangements for the transfer and treatment at an alternative medical facility.

12. The State is further directed to ensure that security deployment during custody parole is proportionate and does not obstruct or hinder the smooth functioning of the hospital. The police authorities shall coordinate with the hospital administration to ensure that the custody parole is effectuated smoothly and without causing disruption to hospital operations or distress to other patients.

13. With the above direction, the application is disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 10, 2025 nk BAIL APPLN. 2335/2025 Page 10 of 10 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2025 at 22:08:36

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders