HC dismisses Sanjeev Nanda’s bail plea | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 28, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

HC dismisses Sanjeev Nanda’s bail plea

The Delhi HC has rejected the bail plea of Sanjeev Nanda who was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for mowing down six persons in BMW hit-and-run case, reports Harish V. Nair.

delhi Updated: Oct 05, 2008 00:02 IST
Harish V. Nair

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed the bail application of businessman Sanjeev Nanda, sentenced to five years imprisonment for mowing down six people, including three policemen, with his speeding BMW nine years ago.

The only silver lining for Nanda is the court’s order of day-to-day hearing of the appeal filed against the conviction from December 1 for its speedy disposal.

The grandson of former Naval chief S.M. Nanda remained lodged in Tihar jail after his conviction by a lower court on September 2. He had earlier spent nine months in prison immediately after the accident in 1999.

“I am of the considered view that the appellant (Nanda) does not deserve bail and suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal,” Justice Kailash Gambhir said.

Touching on the social ill of drunken driving, the court said: “A drunken driver not only risks his life but endangers the lives of others as well. He is no less than a human bomb out to kill innocents on the road… it is a stark reality in metropolitan cities where increasing number of megalomaniacs in drivers seat are causing deaths.”

The court took serious note of the allegation made against Nanda for interfering in the administration of justice by influencing a key witness in the case in which two senior advocates — R.K. Anand (who represented him) and prosecutor in the case I.U. Khan —were found guilty.

Justice Gambhir also referred to the recent Supreme Court order cancelling the bail of the Ansal brothers in Uphaar fire tragedy case for allegedly tampering with evidence.

The court upheld the contention of Public Prosecutor Pawan Sharma that “personal liberty of the appellant doesn’t not outweigh the gravity of offence where precious lives of 6 innocent people were lost”.