Punjab & Haryana High Court grants bail to Manan Aggarwal, accused in a car crash that killed two Jindal Global Law School students. Court cites 11-month custody, most witnesses examined, and no solid proof of intoxication.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently given bail to a 20-year-old student named Manan Aggarwal, who was accused of causing the death of two law students from OP Jindal Global University in a road accident that happened last year.
Justice Sumeet Goel, who heard the matter, noted that Manan has already spent more than 11 months in jail, and most of the witnesses in the case have been examined during the trial.
The Court said,
“Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The incident occurred on February 23, 2024. A student named Rishika Singh, studying BA in Legal Studies at the same university, filed the complaint. She said that on that morning at around 6:00 am, she and her friends, Khiyati Badoria and Jiya Singh, had booked a cab from Golden Hut dhaba to go back to their college campus.
According to the complaint, Manan Aggarwal, who was allegedly drunk at the time, took control of the cab. He reportedly made the actual taxi driver sit in the passenger seat, while the three girls sat in the back seat.
Manan allegedly drove the car at a very high speed, and while trying to overtake a truck, the car lost control, turned over, and hit an electric pole. The accident led to the death of both Khiyati Badoria and Jiya Singh on the spot.
Initially, the police had booked Manan for rash driving, causing hurt by endangering life or safety of others, and causing death due to negligence. But later, the charges were made more serious, and he was booked for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In November 2024, the trial court charged him under Section 114 (abettor present when the offence is committed) and Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
While asking for bail in the High Court, Manan’s lawyers argued that there is no proof that he was drunk during the accident. They told the court that his medical report does not mention anything about alcohol.
They also pointed out that during cross-examination, the investigating officer admitted there is no evidence showing that Manan was drunk or under the influence of any substance when the accident happened.
Manan’s lawyers also said that 16 out of the total 18 witnesses listed by the prosecution have already been examined in court, so there is very little chance that he could influence the remaining evidence or witnesses.
On the other hand, the prosecution and lawyers for the victims strongly opposed the bail. They argued that Manan caused the death of two young students by driving under the influence of alcohol. They also said that he did not even have a valid driving license.
It was further submitted that the police did not carry out a proper investigation, and an application to send Manan’s blood sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory is still waiting to be heard by the trial court.
Despite these arguments, the High Court granted him bail.
The judge observed,
“Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the remaining prosecution evidence especially in view of the fact that 16 prosecution witnesses out of 18 total cited witnesses have already been examined.”
It was also brought to the notice of the Court that Manan is facing another criminal case. The Court responded by saying,
“Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR.”
Importantly, the trial court is still considering an application for further investigation in the case, and that hearing is scheduled for May 1.
In this case, Senior Advocate Hemant Shrivastava along with lawyers Anunay Shrivastava and Rajesh Lamba represented Manan Aggarwal.
Advocate Karan Garg appeared on behalf of the State of Haryana, while Advocates Keshav Pratap Sing and Sayyam Batra represented the victim’s side and the complainant, respectively.
Case Title:
Manan Aggarwal v State of Haryana.
Click Here to Read More Reports Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
