From Shaving Insult to Fatal Fall: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Bail in Grisly Murder Case

In a stark reminder of how humiliation can spiral into tragedy, the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea by Shashi Kant Dwivedi, accused in a Gurugram case where a man was allegedly humiliated before plummeting to his death from a roof. Justice Sumeet Goel, in an oral order dated March 6, 2026, ruled that the gravity of charges under Sections 103(1) (murder) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) demands custodial interrogation to safeguard the probe.

Night of Terror: The Alleged Humiliation and Death

The ordeal unfolded on August 15, 2025, leading to FIR No. 164 at Police Station Sector 17/18, Gurugram. Prosecution alleges that Dwivedi, alongside co-accused Aman Tiwari and Akhilesh, targeted Manjeet Kumar—brother of complainant Manish Kumar. They reportedly forcibly shaved half of Manjeet's head using a hair-cutting machine snatched from barber Ramkumar Thakur's shop, then scrawled "Main chor hoon" ("I am a thief") on the bald patch with a marker pen.

Terrified, Manjeet fled to the roof. The accused allegedly pursued him and, acting in concert, pushed him from behind, causing his fatal fall. CCTV footage captures Manjeet entering the house that night where the accused were present, bolstering the prosecution's narrative. Whether he was pushed or jumped in fear remains under investigation, as noted in trial court observations referenced by the High Court.

"Falsely Implicated": Defense Fires Back

Dwivedi's counsel, Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, argued vehement false implication. The petitioner's role was minimized to merely borrowing the shaving machine—no ownership of the phone in question, no direct injuries inflicted by him, and crucially, no motive for murder. Counsel highlighted that key prosecution witnesses—complainant Manish Kumar (PW1), Arun Kant (PW2), and Chunni Lal (PW3, deceased's father)—had turned hostile. With nothing to recover and readiness to join the probe, pre-arrest bail wouldn't hinder justice, they urged.

Prosecution's Push: "Custody Essential for Truth"

State counsel Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana, countered fiercely. The allegations are "serious in nature," with investigation ongoing and Dwivedi yet to be arrested. Granting bail risked evidence tampering or witness intimidation, especially with the marker pen still unrecovered from him. Barber Thakur's statement implicates Dwivedi directly in seizing the machine, and the crime's brutality—prima facie active involvement in harassment leading to death—necessitates custody for deeper revelations.

Balancing Scales: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning

Justice Goel meticulously weighed individual liberty against societal safeguards, invoking the Supreme Court's landmark in State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187. The apex court there emphasized custodial interrogation's edge in "disinterring useful informations," dismissing fears of third-degree methods as presumptively unfounded against responsible officers.

Prima facie, the court found "serious and specific allegations" against Dwivedi: degrading acts showing "active involvement" in "extreme mental and physical harassment." The probe's crucial stage, potential for influence, and need to clarify the roof incident tipped the balance. "The nature of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner create a reasonable apprehension that, if granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence."

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On the Incident's Horror : "The petitioner, along with co-accused... subjected the deceased Manjeet to grave humiliation by forcibly shaving half of his head and writing the words 'Main chor hoon' on the shaved portion with a marker pen. Prima facie, such degrading acts clearly demonstrate the active involvement..."

  • Investigation Imperative : "Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary given the seriousness of offence, and to collect further incriminating evidence."

  • Liberty vs. Justice : "The Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s)... the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation..."

  • Risk of Tampering : "In the event of grant of anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with prosecution evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses..."

No Bail, Probe Marches On

The petition stands dismissed: "The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed." Dwivedi must now face arrest, with custody poised to unlock truths like the marker pen's whereabouts and full sequence of events. This ruling underscores that in heinous cases blending insult and murder, courts prioritize unhindered probes over preemptive freedom—potentially influencing bail pleas in similar humiliation-driven crimes.