Back
Denies Bail to Amit Khanna in Kanjhawala Hit-and-Run Case Citing Gravity
The on Thursday refused to grant bail to Amit Khanna, the prime accused in the infamous Kanjhawala hit-and-run case, where a 20-year-old woman was dragged under a car for nearly 13 kilometers on . Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the single-judge bench, dismissed the regular bail application after reviewing CCTV footage, eyewitness testimony, and forensic evidence, holding that the “” in which the alleged murder was committed dissuaded the court from granting any relief. The ruling underscores a firm judicial stance against violent crimes committed with apparent callousness and disregard for human life.
The Incident That Shocked the Nation
On the intervening night of , and , Anjali Singh was riding a scooter with her friend Nidhi as a pillion when a speeding car struck their vehicle near Sultan Puri in northwest Delhi. The impact entangled Singh’s body under the car, and the vehicle allegedly continued driving for approximately 13 kilometers—from Sultan Puri to Kanjhawala—dragging the victim along the road. Despite multiple occupants in the car noticing the entangled body, the vehicle did not stop until much later. The incident sparked widespread outrage and led to a high-profile investigation, with the initially registering a case against Deepak, Khanna’s cousin, under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the . However, as evidence unfolded, the charges were escalated to murder under Section 302 and destruction of evidence under Section 201, among others.
Amit Khanna was arrested on , and has been in custody since. His bail application became a focal point for legal scrutiny, given the brutal nature of the crime and the prosecution’s reliance on digital and forensic evidence.
Court’s Reasoning: CCTV Footage and Eyewitness Testimony
Justice Kathpalia examined the material placed before him, including five additional CCTV footage links submitted by the Investigating Officer. The footage, played in open court, showed the offending car being handed over to Khanna, who then occupied the driver’s seat. Although the court acknowledged that “the CCTV footages do not depict face of the accused/applicant at the exact moment of the alleged incident,” the sequence of events captured was deemed sufficient to establish Khanna’s role.
The court also relied heavily on the testimony of Nidhi, the sole eyewitness who was riding pillion with the deceased. In her statement, Nidhi claimed that the deceased was drunk at the time, but she also stated that Khanna and the other occupants of the car were heavily intoxicated. The court observed: “I have examined the testimony of Nidhi… Of course, in her testimony, Nidhi stated that the deceased was drunk… but she also stated that even the accused and other occupants of the offending car were also heavily drunk.” This observation undercut the defense’s attempt to shift blame onto the victim’s condition.
Crucially, the CCTV footage showed that after hitting the deceased, Khanna allegedly continued driving. The court noted: “As mentioned above, the CCTV footages depict that the offending car was handed over to the accused/applicant to drive and even after hitting the deceased and dragging her body under the car, the accused/applicant continued to drive, after which he stopped and got down, but even after seeing the deceased entangled under the car, he drove further up to 13 km.”
Defense Arguments: No Direct Evidence and Delay in Identification
Amit Khanna’s counsel, , argued that his client had been in custody since , and that no evidence directly linked him to the murder. He contended that between January 1 and , there was no case against Khanna as the driver of the offending vehicle. The defense questioned the reliability of Nidhi’s identification, pointing out that she only named Khanna as the driver in her third statement, recorded about a week after the incident—following the disclosure statement of co-accused Ashutosh on . Additionally, the defense highlighted that the Facial Recognition System results had not been placed on record, and the CCTV footage did not show Khanna’s face at the precise moment of the incident.
It was also submitted that 14 of the 117 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, and all other co-accused had been granted bail. The defense urged the court to apply the , arguing that continued detention was unwarranted.
Prosecution’s Counter: A Grave Offence and Forensic Links
opposed the bail plea vigorously, painting a chilling picture of the events. He submitted that after the deceased became entangled under the car, Khanna and his associates got out, saw her body, but nevertheless continued driving for another 13 kilometers. This, the prosecution argued, demonstrated a complete lack of remorse and a deliberate intention to cause death.
The prosecution bolstered its case with forensic evidence, including DNA analysis of flesh recovered from the offending car, which matched the deceased’s DNA. The court also noted that Khanna had refused to participate in proceedings, which could be construed as an . The cumulative weight of the CCTV footage, eyewitness account, and scientific evidence convinced the court that a existed against Khanna.
The Verdict: ‘’ of Murder Dissuades Bail
In a crisp order, Justice Kathpalia concluded: “The in which the murder was allegedly committed dissuades me to grant bail. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.” The court did not elaborate further but made it clear that the nature of the offence—dragging a helpless victim for kilometers after the initial impact—overrode any considerations of parity or prolonged custody.
Legal Analysis: Bail in Homicide Cases
The decision reflects the settled principle that bail is not a matter of right in cases involving , particularly murder under Section 302 IPC. Courts typically deny bail when the evidence points to a well-planned or brutally executed crime, and when the accused’s release could undermine public confidence in the justice system. Here, the court applied the “gravity of the offence” test, which weighs the nature and seriousness of the alleged act against the .
The defense’s argument about the lack of direct identification at the exact moment was countered by —CCTV showing Khanna taking the driver’s seat, the car’s continued movement, and the refusal to participate in TIP. The court also implicitly rejected the parity argument, as the roles of other co-accused may have been different. This reinforces that each accused’s bail application must be assessed on its own facts.
Impact on Legal Practice
For criminal law practitioners, this ruling serves as a reminder that in high-profile cases involving extreme violence, courts are unlikely to grant bail even after prolonged incarceration, especially when the prosecution has built a strong . The emphasis on CCTV footage—even without a clear facial image—highlights the growing reliance on digital evidence to establish a chain of events. Additionally, the court’s consideration of TIP refusal as an adverse factor may encourage prosecutors to invoke such failures more often in bail arguments.
The case also underscores the importance of early witness statements. The defense’s challenge to Nidhi’s delayed identification was noted but not given decisive weight, as her testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Lawyers handling similar matters should be prepared to address inconsistencies in witness accounts while also anticipating that forensic evidence can often fill gaps.
Conclusion
The ’s denial of bail to Amit Khanna marks another chapter in the Kanjhawala hit-and-run case, which continues to captivate public attention. While the accused remains in custody pending trial, the court’s reasoning—grounded in the sheer horror of the crime—sends a clear message: when lives are snuffed out with such brutality, the scales of justice tilt decisively against release. As the trial progresses, the legal community will watch closely to see how the prosecution’s evidence holds up in court, but for now, the bail decision stands as a stern judicial response to a heart-wrenching tragedy.
