Wrote "Main Chor Hoon" On It With A Marker — And A Man Died: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail

"Such Degrading Acts Clearly Demonstrate Active Involvement of the Petitioner in Subjecting the Deceased to Extreme Mental and Physical Harassment", Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition in a deeply disturbing murder case where the accused, along with co-accused, had allegedly forcibly shaved half of the deceased's head, written the words "Main chor hoon" on the shaved portion with a marker pen, and pursued him to the rooftop from which he fell to his death.

Justice Sumeet Goel held that the nature of the allegations, the active role attributed to the petitioner, and the crucial stage of investigation made the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail wholly inappropriate.

FIR No.164 dated 15.08.2025 was registered at Police Station Sector 17/18, District Gurugram, against the petitioner Shashi Kant Dwivedi and co-accused Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — the equivalent of Section 302 IPC — for murder, read with Section 3(5) BNS (equivalent of Section 34 IPC) for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

"Whether Deceased Was Pushed From The Roof Or Jumped Under Fear Or Instigation Caused By The Accused — A Matter To Be Unearthed During Investigation"

Justice Sumeet Goel was unambiguous in his assessment of the prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court observed that "serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner" and that the acts of forcibly shaving the deceased's head and writing humiliating words on it "clearly demonstrate the active involvement of the petitioner and his associates in subjecting the deceased to extreme mental and physical harassment."

Crucially, the Court addressed the central factual uncertainty in the case — whether Manjeet Kumar was physically pushed from the roof or whether he jumped or fell under the overwhelming pressure of fear and humiliation caused by the accused — and held that this "is a matter that would be unearthed during the course of investigation." This observation is of significant legal importance: it establishes that even where the precise manner of death remains under investigation, the causal chain between the accused's conduct and the death may be sufficient to attract liability, and certainly sufficient to deny anticipatory bail at the pre-arrest stage.

The Court also noted the material gathered during preliminary investigation. The statement of the barber Ramkumar Thakur confirmed that the petitioner along with co-accused had forcibly taken the hair cutting machine and shaved the deceased's head. CCTV footage had been obtained showing the deceased entering the house during the night when the accused were present. The marker pen used to write the humiliating words on the deceased's head was yet to be recovered from the petitioner — a factor weighing heavily against the grant of pre-arrest bail.

On the argument that prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, the Court was unpersuaded. The turning hostile of witnesses, rather than helping the accused at the anticipatory bail stage, actually reinforced the apprehension that witnesses may be influenced or intimidated if the petitioner were to secure a protective order.

The Court invoked the Supreme Court's landmark dictum in State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, observing that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code." The Supreme Court had held in that case that effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in uncovering useful information and concealed materials, and that such success "would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order."

Applying this principle, Justice Goel held: "Considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it was executed, and the role attributed to the petitioner, he does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail." The Court further held that granting anticipatory bail "would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation."

The Court also articulated the governing standard for anticipatory bail decisions: "while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society." Measured against this standard, the petition was found wholly devoid of merit and dismissed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's order sends a firm message that where a person participates in the systematic humiliation of a victim — an act that directly and foreseeably leads to that victim's death — mere peripheral role arguments will not open the door to anticipatory bail. The Court's observation that whether the deceased was pushed or jumped under fear is a matter for investigation to resolve underscores a vital principle: the causal contribution of humiliation, terror and instigation to a person's death is as much a subject of criminal inquiry as the physical act of pushing. With CCTV footage, a barber's eyewitness account, and incriminating evidence yet to be recovered, the Court found custodial interrogation indispensable to unravel the full truth of a death that began with a forced haircut and the words "Main chor hoon."

Date of Decision: March 06, 2026