The judge also dismissed Bawania's argument regarding the delay in the trial, stating that Article 21 of the Constitution does not serve as a "free pass" to demand bail, irrespective of the criminal background and the severity of the offense. However, the court urged the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial without further delay.

The prosecution contended that while being transported in a jail van from the Rohini Court lock-up to Tihar Jail in 2015, Bawania assaulted the two deceased, dragging them to the floor of the vehicle before strangling them with "gamchas."

"Such perverse fearlessness of the perpetrators makes this court wonder whether it would be safe to release the petitioner from custody & set him at-large in society, trusting that he would not commit any other grievous offence," added the court.

In his bail plea, the accused argued that he had already spent over nine years in incarceration as an undertrial and that there was uncertainty regarding when the trial would be concluded.

The court recognized the right of an accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution but noted that mere delay alone was not enough to grant bail. It emphasized that other factors must also be taken into account before deciding to release an accused on bail.

"The petitioner is stated to be the head of the dreaded 'Neeraj Bawania Gang', & therefore, regardless of how long he may have been in jail in the present case, this court is not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not indulge in criminality again & would not be a threat to the society at large," it said.

The court stated that the fundamental right to liberty must be weighed against societal interests, emphasizing that constitutional rights are not absolute, particularly when the accused has committed grave offenses while already on bail in other cases. It further observed that the petitioner had an extensive record of involvement in serious crimes, many of which are punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty.

"Bail is not being denied so as to inflict pre-trial punishment upon the petitioner, but in view of the petitioner's grave criminal antecedents & demonstrable recidivistic tendencies, as discussed above. It may be said the right to speedy trial derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not a 'freepass' for every undertrial, demanding that he be enlarged on bail regardless of his criminal antecedents & the nature of the offence," the order said.